Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

Full text of "The works of the Most Reverend Father in God, William Laud, sometime Lord Archbishop of Canterbury"

See other formats













THE present volume contains the remaining portion of 
the Archbishop s History, including the narrative of his 
Trial, day by day. There will be found in the notes, besides 
the usual biographical notices, very large extracts from the 
Journals of the Houses of Lords and Commons, either 
illustrative and confirmatory of the Archbishop s statements, 
or else carrying on more minutely than he was able to do, 
the details of his history, towards its melancholy close. 

The remainder of the volume contains the following 
additional documents : (1) A fuller account of the Arch 
bishop s death, from Rushworth and Heylin ; (2) his dying 
Speech ; (3) his last Will and Testament, reprinted from the 
edition published by John Bruce, Esq., in his account of 
the Archbishop s Berkshire benefactions ; (4) illustrative 
extracts from the Conference with Fisher, and other books 
referred to in the preceding History ; (5) Rome s Master- 

All these, with the exception of the more complete edition 
of the Will, are simple reprints of Henry Wharton s edition. 


The Answer to the Lord Say and Selo s Speech, and 
the Archbishop s Annual Accounts of his Province, which 
were also inserted by Wharton, as part of the Appendix 
to the History, appear elsewhere in this edition. 


Dec. 19, 1853. 



I. History of Troubles and Trial (continued) . 1 

IT. Supplement to the History, from Rushworth and Heylin 420 

III. The Archbishop s Dying Speech .... 430 

IV. His Last Will and Testament . . . . .441 
V. Appendix of Illustrative Extracts, by H. Wharton . 452 

VI. Rome s Master-Piece 403 




192 CAP. XIV. 

ST. LEONARD S, Foster-Lane, London, is in the gift of the 
Dean and Chapter of Westminster. Mr. William Ward the 
Incumbent had resigned, and besides was censured by a 
Committee in Parliament, for innovations, and I know not 
what a . One Mr. George Smith was tendered (it seems) to 
the Dean and Chapter of Westminster. How things were 
carried there, I know not ; but they let their living fall in lapse 
to the Ld. Bishop of London. His six months likewise were 
suffered to slide over, and the benefice was lapsed to me, as 
Archbp. of Canterbury, about March the 3d. In all this Mart. 3, 
time Mr. Ward had not the providence l to seek to the King 
for remedy, or to the original patrons, whose presentation at 
any time before the Bishop had filled the Church, was (as 
I am informed) good in law. 

This benefice being now in my dispose, the precise part of 
the parish petition the Parliament for the aforesaid Mr. George 

1 prudence 

a [Ward had given offence to the on his sequestration, where it is said 

Parliament by having denounced the he died for want. (Lloyd s Worthies, 

Scots as traitors in a concio ad clerum p. 508.)] 
at Sion College. He retired to Oxford 

LAUD. VOL. iv. 


Smith; and by the means of my Lord Kimbolton 1 (a great 
patron of such men) obtain this Order following : 

"Die Jovis, 17 Martii, 1641. 

" Upon the reading of the Petition of the parishioners of 
St. Leonard s, Foster-Lane, London, it is ordered by the Lords 
in Parliament, that Mr. George Smith, elected and approved 
by the Dean of Westminster, and the parishioners of St. 
Leonard s, Foster-Lane, be especially recommended to the 
Ld. Archbp. of Canterbury his Grace from this (86) House, 
that the said Mr. Smith may be forthwith presented to the 
parish church of the said St. Leonard. 

" JOHN BROWN, Clericus Parliament" 

Mar. 19, This order was brought me by the Churchwardens, and 
some of the parish, on Saturday, March 19. I was sorry for 
the honest Incumbent s sake, Mr. Ward; and troubled in 
myself to have such an order sent me : especially, considering 
that the Lords former order c (though, as I was 1 informed, 
against all law, yet) was so moderate as to suffer me to nomi 
nate to benefices, so that the men were without exception. 
I put them off till Monday. In the meantime I advised with 
my learned counsel, and other friends. All of them agreed 
in this ; That it was a great and a violent injustice put upon 
me ; yet in regard of the time, and my condition, they 
persuaded me to give way to their power, and present their 

Mar. 21, On Monday, Mar. 21, they repaired to me again: I sent 
them to my Register, to draw a presentation according to the 
Order of Parliament, and advised them while that was in 
drawing, to send Mr. Smith to me. One of them told me 
very boldly, that it was not in the Order of Parliament, that 
Mr. Smith should come to me ; and another told me 2 that 
Mr. Smith would not come to me. Upon this unworthy usage 
of me, I dismissed them again, having first, in obedience to 
the order, sealed and set my hand to the presentation, ready 
for delivery when Mr. Smith came for it. 193 

1 [ was originally written am ] 2 [ told me on opposite page.] 

b [Edward Montagu, the eldest son c P. 81 [of original MS. See vol. 
of the Earl of Manchester.] iii. p. 451.] 


The next morning these men repair again to the Lords 
House, and on Wednesday, Mar. 23, procure another order d , Mar 23 
strictly commanding me forthwith to deliver the presentation I64f . 
to the parishioners 1 . 

This order being settled, the E. of Holland 6 made a motion, 
and put the Lords in mind that I lay under a heavy charge, 
and had long lain so : that it would be honourable for the 
Parliament to bring my cause to hearing, that so I might 
receive punishment if 2 I were found to deserve it 3 , or other 
wise have some end of my troubles. There was a great dis 
pute among my friends, quo ammo, with what mind this Ld. 
moved it, especially then, when almost all my friends in both 
Houses were absent. Howsoever I took it for the best, 
desiring nothing more than an end ; and therefore sent a gen 
tleman the next day to give his Lp. thanks for his nobleness 
in remembering me. And if he did it with an ill mind, God 
forgive him, and preserve me. But whatsoever his Lp. s 
intent was, his motion, after some debate, begat a message to 
the House of Commons, to ripen my business f ; but it died 
again, arid nothing done. 

The order last above written, concerning Mr. Smith, the 
parishioners brought to me the same day in the afternoon. 
It happened that the L. Primate of Armagh % was then with 
me. I showed him the order, and he blessed himself to see 
it ; yet advised me to obey, as my other friends had done. I 
further desired him to stay and hear my answer to them, 
which was this : That I knew not what report they had made 

1 [A passage is here erased, of which only the first few words are legible, 
* The Ld. Kimbolton saying Mr. Smith ] 

2 [ receive ... if on opposite page.] 3 [ it, interlined.] 

d [" Ordered, that the Lord Arch- whereby the Church is still troubled, 

bishop of Cant, shall forthwith confer notwithstanding his imprisonment in 

the presentation of St. Leonard s, Fos- the Tower of London, that the House 

ter Lane, according to a former order of Commons might be sent to, to be 

of this House, dated the 17th of this desired that they would proceed to 

instant March, upon Mr. George Smith, make good their impeachment of high 

Clerk, and that his Grace shall forth- treason against him, that so he might 

with deliver the said presentation unto receive judgment according to his 

the Churchwardens or parishioners of demerit ; and likewise to move the 

that parish."] House of Commons, that they would 

e [Henry llich.] proceed against the rest of the delin- 

f [" It was moved, That considering quents with what conveniency they 

the power which the Archbishop of may."] 

Cant, hath in ecclesiastical matters, [James Ussher.] 

B 2 


of me and my obedience to the Lords ; and that therefore I 
would give their Lps. in writing an account of my proceed 
ings 1 ; but would deliver the presentation to Mr. Smith when 
he came. The Ld. Primate cried shame of them to their 
faces ; so they went away. 

Mar. -21, Qn Thursday, March 24, in an humble petition I informed 
the Lords how ready I was to obey ; only desired that Mr. 
Smith might come to me, that I might see his orders, and 
examine his sufficiency ; to both which I stood bound both 
in conscience and by law. Upon reading of this petition, 
some Lords said Mr. Smith was an unmannerly fellow, not 
to come to me ; but the L. Kimboltoii told them he was a 
very worthy man, and that he might go to me afterward ; 
but it was fit their order should be obeyed. And the E. of 
Warwick 11 added, that I desired Mr. Smith (87) might come 
to me, only that I might pick a quarrel with him, to frustrate 
the order of the House. Upon this there followed instantly 
a peremptory order, commanding me to present obedience 1 . 
So Mr. Smith was left to come to me afterwards, if he pleased; 
and he came not at all, which was as good as if he had come, 
to have his sufficiency examined for that which he had 
already in possession. But how worthy and fit he proved, I 
refer to all honest men that heard him afterwards k . 

Upon this order, according to the former advice of my 
friends l , I delivered the presentation to the churchwardens 
and parishioners ; and if anything proved amiss in the man, 
(as after did in a high measure,) or hurtful in the thing itself, 
I humbly besought God to have mercy on me, and to call 
for an account of them who laid this pressure upon me. 

1 [Originally proceedings herein ; ] 

Rob. "Rich.] year. On his death he was succeeded 
[" Upon reading the petition of by James Nalton, who was appointed, 
the Archbishop of Canterbury, it is April 13, 1643, "ad recommcndatio- 
ordered, That he shall confer forth- nemsivenoniinationem honorabilium 
with the presentation of St. Leonard s Virorum Dominorum in suprema cu- 
Foster Lane, upon George Smith, Clerk, ria Parliament! congregatorum, juxta 
according to former orders of this ordinem in ea parte editam." (New- 
House."] court, Report, vol. i. p. 395.)] 

k [Smith, who was instituted April > [P. 86 (of orig. MS.) Sec above, 

19, 1642, held this benefice only fur a p. 3.] 


194 CAP. XV. 

BEFORE this time the rectory of Stisted in Essex was fallen 
void, and in my gift. The E. of Warwick was an earnest 
suitor to me for it, for one Mr. Clark : I delayed, having six 
months time by law to dispose of my benefices. During this 
delay, Mr. Richard Hewlett, a bachelor of divinity, and a 
man of very good worth, a dean in Ireland a , was by the 
rebels there turned out of all he had, and forced, for safety 
of his life, to come with his wife and children into England : 
his wife was my near kinswoman b . At their coming over I 
was forced to relieve them, else they might have begged. 
Hereupon I resolved in myself to give Stisted to Mr. Hewlett, 
and to gratify Mr. Clark with something after; nothing 
doubting but that the Parliament would readily give way in 
such a case of necessity, for so worthy a man as Mr. Hewlett 
was known to be. 

While these things were in my thoughts, two other great 
benefices fell into my disposal, Booking, and Lachingdon, 
both in Essex. Presently the parishioners petition me; 
they of Booking for Dr. Gawden c , a chaplain of the E. of 
Warwick s; they of Lachingdon, that they might choose 
their own minister. I gave a fair answer to both, but reserved 
myself. Then I was pressed with letters from the E. of 
Warwick, for Dr. Gawden. My answer was, I could not 
gratify Dr. Gawden with Bocking, and Mr. Clark with 
Stisted. Then Dr. Gawden brings me a very earnest letter, 
but very honourable, from the E. of Hertford 11 . When I saw 


1 [ Before originally By ] 

a [Installed as Dean of Cashel, b [See the Archbishop s letter to 

March 9, 163f , in the place of William Bp. Bramhall, Aug. 11, 1638.] 

Chappell, appointed Bp. of Cork. He c [Gawden retained this preferment 

had been the tutor of Bramhall at during the Rebellion, and at the Resto- 

Sidney Sussex College, and also of ration was appointed successively Bp. 

Oliver Cromwell (Wood, F. 0. ii. 153). of Exeter and Worcester.] 

The names of some of his other pupils <l [William Seymour, eleventh Earl 

are mentioned below.] and first Marquis of Hertford.] 


myself thus pressed, I resolved to name fit men to all three 
benefices, presently, and see how the Parliament would be 
pleased to deal with me. 

Before I did this, I thought fit to make a fair offer to the 
E. of Warwick, who by Dr. Gawden s entreaty came to me 
to the Tower. I freely told his Lp. my resolution, which 
was, that at the desire of his Lp., and my honourable friend 
the L. Marquess of Hertford, I would give Bocking to Dr. 
Gawden ; Lachingdon to Mr. Howlett, in regard of his alliance 
to me, and his present necessities ; and Stisted to Mr. New- 
sted e , to whom I was pre-engaged by promise to my ancient 
worthy friend, Sir Tho. Rowe f , whom Mr. Newsted had served 
in his embassages seven years; and for Mr. Clark, he 
should have the next benefice which fell in my gift, for his 
Lp/s sake. His Lp. seemed to be very much taken with 
this offer of mine, and promised me, and gave me his hand 
upon it, that he would do me all the kindness he could, that 
these my nominations might pass with the Lords. 

Mar. 31, Upon this I rested, and according to my promise, petitioned 
the Lords, as is expressed. Upon the reading of this petition, 
the Lords ordered me presently to collate Bocking upon Dr. 

April 1, Gawden; which I did, the order being brought unto me the 
next day?. But for the other two, the Lords took time to 
consider. The E. of Warwick was then present in the House, 
and, as I was informed, said little or nothing. This made 195 
me fear the worst; and therefore I advised Mr. Howlett to 
get a full certificate of the L. Primate of Armagh, both for 

c [Christopher Newstead was Vicar conceives to be deserving men for 

of St.Helen s, Abingdon, June 21, 1629 those places, and desires their Lord- 

(Rymer, Feed. VIII. iii. 84); Rector of ships approbation of them before he 

Halingbury, June 1, 1636 (ibid. IX. presents. 

ii. 88) ; and Preb. of Caddington Minor " The names of the persons are 

in the Ch. of St. Paul s, Aug. 25, 1660 these ; viz. Mr. Richard Howlett to 

(Wood, Ath. Ox. ii. 294).] the Rectory of Lachinden; Dr. Gaw- 

{ [Sir Thomas Howe had been em- dine to the Rectory of R-erkinge (sic), 

ployed successively as Ambassador to in Essex ; Mr. Christopher Newstead 

the Porte, to Poland, Sweden, and to the Rectory of Stisted. 

Denmark. He was now M.P. for the " The House, taking this petition 

University of Oxford. See his life in into consideration, ordered, That this 

Biogr. Brit.] House doth approve of Dr. Gawdine 

[" April 1, 1642. to be presented to the Rectory of Ber- 

" The petition of the Archbishop of king, and that the Archbishop of 
Canterbury was read, showing that Canterbury do present him accord- 
there are some benefices now void, ingly ; and for the other two persons 
which are in his bestowing, but in mentioned in the aforesaid petition, 
obedience to their Lordships order he this House will take a few days to 
hath the names of such persons a.s he consider of it."] 


life and learning, and attend with it at the Parliament, to 
make the best friends for himself. The business stuck still. 
At last he met with the L. Kimboltori, who presently made 
all weather fair for him ; and upon his Lp. s motion to the 
House, an order passed for Mr. Hewlett to have Lach- Apr. 13, 
ingdon 11 . The motive this: Mr. Hewlett was Fellow of 1( 
(88) Sidney College in Cambridge, and tutor at that time to 
two sons of the L. Mountague 1 , the L. Kimbolton s uncle; 
at which time also the L. Kimbolton himself was a student 
in the same college, and knew the person and worth of 
Mr. Howlett. This his Lp. honourably now remembered ; 
else it might have gone hard with Mr. Hewlett s necessities. 
So upon the order thus obtained, I collated Lachiiigdon 
upon him. 

After this the E. of Warwick went Lord Admiral to sea 1 , 
by appointment of the Parliament; and forthwith I was 
served with another order to give Stisted to Mr. Clark k . Apr. 20, 
Hereupon I petitioned again, and set forth 2 my relations and 
engagements to Sir Tho. Howe ; and Dr. Gawden having told 
me that the E. of Warwick had left that business for me in 
trust with the L. Roberts 1 , 1 made bold to write to his lordship, 
and entreat his lawful favour. The L. Roberts denied that any 
such order or care of that business was left with him, nor 
would he meddle in it ; but referred me to the L. Kimbolton, 
who still followed the business close for Mr. Clark. By all 

1 [ to sea, interlined.] 2 [ and set forth in marg.] 

h [" Upon reading of a petition of of Lachenden, with what convenient 

the Archbishop of Canterbury, wherein speed he can."] 

Mr. Kichard Howlett, Bachelor of Di- [Edward Montagu, created Baron 
vinity, (having lost lately a good pre- Montagu of Boughton, June 29, 1621 ; 
ferment in Ireland by the rebellion ancestor of the Dukes of Montagu and 
there,) was nominated by his Grace to of the present Duke of Buccleuch.] 
be preferred to the Rectory of Lachen- k [" Ordered, That Mr. John Clarke, 
den, in the county of Essex, with the the now Curate of the Parish of Stisted, 
approbation of this House, and also in the County of Essex, and the mi- 
upon a certificate of the Lord Primate nister there being lately dead, is here 
of Armagh, that the said Mr. How- by specially recommended to the Arch- 
lett is a man esteemed of sound doc- bishop of Canterbury, to be a Minister 
trine and uncorrupted life, and very and Parson of the aforesaid Church of 
industrious in the ministry, it is Stisted, being certified to be a man of 
ordered, That this House doth approve good life and sound doctrine."] 
of the said Mr. Richard Howlett, and J [John Robartes, second Baron 
do recommend him to the said Arch- Robartes, created Vise. Boclmin and 
bishop of Canterbury to be collated Earl of Radnor, July 23, 1679.] 
and instituted to the aforesaid Rectory 


which it appeared to me, that the E. of Warwick had forgotten 

his promise to me, to say no more l . 

Soon after I received another order, to give Stisted to 
Apr. 25, Mr. Clark. To this I answered again by petition, but with 
Mali 3, like success : for another order came forth peremptorily to 
1642. command me to give Stisted to Mr. Clark. But it so fell 

out, that this order was not brought to me till ten days after 

the date ; I sent my counsel to attend the Lds. that I might 

not fall into contempt. The business was not then called on, 
1642 16 anc ^ ky tne sixteenth of the same month, Stisted fell in lapse 

to his Majesty : so I lost the giving of the benefice, and 

somebody else their ends upon me. 

1 [ to say no more. inserted afterwards, partly on opposite page.] 

111 [Lords Journals, vol. v. p. 16 ] sented by the King to Stisted, June 
" [Ibid. p. 38.] 20, 1642 (llymer, Foed. IX. iii. 104).] 

[Christopher JSTewstead was pre- 


196 CAP. XVI. 

ON May 1 5, Sunday, I made a shift, between my man and Mail i, 
my staff, to go to church. There preached one Mr. Joslin a . 1( 
His text, Judg. v. 23, " Curse ye Merosh," &c. To pass over 
what was strangely evil throughout his sermon, his personal 
abuse of me was so foul and so palpable, that women and 
boys stood up in the church, to see how I could bear it : and 
this was my first welcome into the church, after my long 
lameness. But I humbly thank God for it, I bare his viru 
lence patiently, and so it vanished : as did much other of like 
nature, which I bare both before and after this. God forgive 

After this I had some quietness; most particulars lying 
dead, out of several respects unknown to me. But all things 
grew higher and higher between the King and the Parliament, 
to the great damage and distraction of the kingdom. God 
of his mercy send a speedy and a blessed issue, and preserve 
his Majesty, the kingdom, and this poor Church from ruin: 
but I much fear our sins are ripe for a very great, if not a 
final judgment. 

Friday, August the 19th, Captain Royden and his company, Aug. 19, 
by order of Parliament, came about seven of the clock in the 
evening to my house at Lambeth, to take away my arms. 
They stayed there all night, and searched every room, and 
where any key was not ready, brake open doors : and the 
next morning they carried my arms away in carts to Guild- 
Hall, London ; and I was sufficiently abused all the way by 
the people, as my arms passed. They gave out in London, 
there were arms for ten thousand men ; whereas there was 
not enough for two hundred. And the arms I bought of my 
predecessor s executors ; only some I was forced to mend, the 
fashion of arms being changed. He left to defend that large 
house, but six swords, six carabines, three halberds, and two 

a Jocelin. [See Diary at this date.] 



Sept, 1 

9, 1642. 

10, 1642. 

Octob. 15. 

half pikes : though the order b formerly made by the Lords, 
required necessary defence for the house should be left. But 
it seems Captain Hoyden s order now given was stricter ; for 
he was towards me and my house very civil in all things. 

This day, Sept. 1, 1612, the Bps. were voted down in 
the House of Commons : and that night there was great 
ringing and bonfires in the city ; which I conceive (89) was 
cunningly ordered to be done by Alderman Pennington, the 
new L. Mayor, chosen in the room of Sir Richard Gurney, 
who was then in the Tower, and put out of his office by the 
Parliament. And my mind gives me, that if bishops do go 
down, the city will not have cause to joy in it. 

About this time the cathedral church of Canterbury was 
grossly profaned; yet far worse afterward. 

All- Hallows, Bread-street, was now fallen void, and in my 
gift ; and, September 9, there came an order from the House 
of Peers for me to give it d : but having six months respite by 
law, I delayed it for that time, which created me much trouble 
from the parishioners, who often solicited me 1 . 

About the tenth of this month, the bishops were voted 1 97 
down in the Upper House c . So it seems I must live to see 
my calling fall before me. 

Upon Saturday, Octob. 15, it was resolved upon the ques 
tion, That all rents and profits of all archbishops, bishops, 
deans and chapters, and other delinquents, should be seques 
tered for the use and service of the Commonwealth f : according 

1 [ for me to ... me. on opposite page.] 

b P. 82 [of original MS. See vol. iii. 
p. 456.] 

c [It is thus entered in the Com 
mons Journals : 

" The declaration from the General 
Assembly of Scotland was, according 
to the order of this House, now again 
read. And the House fell into the 
debate thereof. 

" Kesolved upon the question, lie- 
mine, contract icente, That the govern 
ment of the Church of England by 
archbishops, bishops, their chancellors 
and commissaries, deans, deans and 
chapters, archdeacons, and other eccle 
siastical officers, hath been found by 
long experience to be a great impedi 
ment to the perfect reformation and 

growth of religion, and very prejudi 
cial to the state and government of 
this kingdom. And this House doth 
resolve that the same shall be taken 

d [" Ordered, That Mr. Seaman shall 
be recommended to the Archbishop 
of Cant, to be rector of the parish of 
All-Hallows, Bread-street, in London, 
in the place of Mr. Lauson, who is 
lately dead."] 

e [See the Answer to the Declaration 
of the General Assembly of Scotland, 
about Church Government, Lords 
Journals, vol. v. pp. 349, 350.] 

f [See Lords Journals, vol. v. p. 


to which ordinance, all the profits of my archbishopric were 
taken away from me, and not one penny allowed me for 
maintenance. Nay, whereas this order was not made till a 
full fortnight after Michaelmas ; yet so hard a hand was 
carried over me, as that my rents, due at Michaelmas, were 
seized on to the use of the Parliament : by which means my 
estate was as good as sequestered almost from our Lady-day 
before ; more than two parts of three of the rents being 
payable at Michaelmas s. 

An order came from the House, October 24 h , that no Octob. 24. 
prisoner should keep above two servants, nor speak with any 
man, but in the presence and hearing of his warder. My 
case for the former branch of this order, differed from all 
other prisoners. For they lay in several warders houses, in 
which they might be fitted by the servants of the house for 
ordering their diet ; but I was in a prison-lodging, void of all 
comfort and company. And therefore upon Octob. 27, ct t>- 27. 
(which was the very next day after the order was showed to 
me,) I humbly besought the Lords for a cook and butler, 
beside the two which were to attend me in my prison *, 
by reason of my age and infirmities; which, though with 
difficulty, yet I humbly thank their Lps. was granted me, 
Octob. 28 k . Octob. 28. 

On Wednesday, Nov. 2, I dreamed (that night) that l the Nov. 2. 
Church was undone, and that I went to St. John s in Oxford, 
where I found the roof off from some part of the college, and 
the walls ready to fall down. God be merciful. 

Upon Wednesday, Nov. 9, about five of the clock in the Noveml>.9. 
morning, Captain Brown and his company entered my house 
at Lambeth, to keep it for public service. Hereupon I peti 
tioned the Lords the same day, for the safety of the library, 
of my own study, and of such goods as were in my house : 
all which was very honourably granted unto me by a full 
order of the Lords that very day ; with a strict charge, that 
they which were there employed in the public service, should 

1 [ night) that interlined.] 

* It was so then, though now other- f. person 

wise. k [There is no notice of this in 

h [See Lords Journals, vol. v. p. Lords Journals.] 




Nov. 16. 

Nov. 22. 




take special care that all the forenamed things should be 
preserved in safety. 

Either this day, or the day before, Mr. Holland and Mr. 
Ashurst, two of the House of Commons, came, accompanied 
with some musketeers, and entered my house, and searched 
for money, and took away seventy and eight pound from my 
receiver, Mr. Walter Dobson, and said it was for the mainte 
nance of the King s children 1 . God of his mercy look favour 
ably upon the King, and bless his children from needing any 
such poor maintenance. 

November 16, Wednesday, an order forbidding the pri 
soners men to speak one with another, but in the presence 
of the warder, and to bar them the liberty of the Tower : only 
this order was so far enlarged, Novemb. 22, that any of 
them might go out of the Tower to buy provision or other 

On the 24th of this month, the soldiers at Lambeth-House 198 
brake open the chapel doors, and offered violence to the 
organ ; but before much hurt was done, the captain heard of 
it, and stayed them. 

Upon the death of Sir Charles Caesar ra , the Mastership of 
the Faculties fell into my gift ; but I could not dispose of it, 
by reason of (90) the order of Parliament, of Octob. 23, 1641 1 , 
but with their approbation. Therefore I petitioned the Lords 
that I might give it to Dr. Aylet n or Dr. Heath , both 
then attendants in that honourable House; well knowing 
it would be in vain to name any other : and the Lords 

1 [ of . .. 1641 interlined.] 

1 [The orders of the House of Com 
mons on this subject ran thus : 
" Nov. 8, 1642. 

"Mr. Ashurst, Mr. Holland, are 
appointed to go to Lambeth House, 
and to take some of the Trained Bauds 
with them ; and to seize the rents that 
are now paying in to his receiver, and 
other officers, and to search the house 
for arms, and to search the steward s 
and receiver s books, to see what mo 
nies have been received of the Mi 
chaelmas rents." 

" Nov. 9, 1642. Ordered, That Mr. 
Dobson, the Bishop of Canterbury s 
receiver, do pay unto Mr. Holland the 

monies already received by him, or to 
be received, of the said Bishop s rents 
and revenues ; and that the said mo 
nies shall be employed for the use of 
the King s two youngest children s 
household. And that Mr. Holland be 
accountable for the said monies, in 
such manner as the House shall di 

m [The youngest son of Sir Julius 
Csesar. (Wood, F. 0. i. 348.)] 

n [Rob. Aylet, M.A. of Cambridge, 
incorporated at Oxford, July 12, 1608, 
afterwards D.C.L. (Wood,F.O. i.328.)] 

[See vol. iii. p. 248.] 


sent me an order to give it to Dr. Aylet P ; and I did it 1 Decemb. 8. 

The vicarage of Horsham in Sussex was in my gift, and fell Decemb. 
void. At the entreaty of Sir John Conniers, then Lieutenant 19t 
of the Tower, I petitioned the House that I might give it to 
Mr. Conniers, the lecturer at 2 Bow. But before my petition 
came to be delivered, the House had made an order against 
him, upon complaint from Horsham of his disordered life q ; 
so busy were that party of men 3 to complain of all men, who 
were not theirs in faction ; and such ready admittance had 
both they and their complaints in both Houses. For my 
part, the man was a stranger to me, and inquiring after him 
(as well as a poor prisoner could), I heard no ill of him for his 
life. Nevertheless, hearing how the Lords were possessed 
against him, I forbare the sending of that petition, and sent 
another for my own chaplain, Mr. William Brackstone. But 
he was refused 1 ; yet no exception taken against him, for life 
or learning ; nor indeed could any be s . 

Upon the 23d of the same month 4 , Dr. Layton came with Decemb. 


1 [ and I did it originally written which I did ] 2 [ at orig. < of] 

3 [ so ... men originally written as they were so busy. ] 

4 [A word here erased; it seems to be Thursday. ] 

P [" Dec. 8, 1642. Archbishop of Cant., who is a disserv- 

" The petition of the Archbishop of ing man, and unfit for that place; 

Cant, was read showing, That whereas Hereupon it is ordered, That the 

Sir Charles Csesar, Master of the Rolls, Archbishop of Cant, shall have notice 

and Master of the Faculties, is dead, that this House doth not approve of 

and by that means renders the office the said Coniers to be presented to 

of the Faculties void, which is in his the said parish."] 
Lordship s gift; and whereas by an r ["Dec. 26, 1642. Upon reading 

order of this House, dated 23d of Oc- of a petition of the Archbishop of 

tober, 164 l,he is required not to bestow Cant, showing, That whereas, by an 

any office or dignity without first order of this House, dated October 27, 

acquainting their Lordships with it, 1641, he is required to give no bene- 

for your Lordships approbation of the fice or dignity without first acquaint- 

person : ing this House, for their Lordships 

" He humbly names Dr. Heath and approbation of the person, and whereas 

Dr. Aylett, men able and honest, and the vicarage of Horsham, in Sussex, 

such as have given long attendance is in his patronage and now void, his 

upon this House, and if their Lord- Grace names to the said vicarage Mr. 

ships approve either of them, he shall Win. Blackston (sic), CJerk, and his 

give the office accordingly. chaplain in house at the time of the 

" Ordered, That this House approves breaking up thereof, and hopes he will 

of Dr. Aylett, and recommends him to deserve their Lordships approbation : 
the Archbishop of Cant, to be Judge " Ordered, That this House will 

of the Faculties."] consider further of this person now 

i [" Upon petition of the inhabit- nominated."] 

tants of the borough and parish of s [For the persons mentioned in 

Horsham, in the county of Sussex, this paragraph, see notes on Diary at 

showing that one Mr. Coniers hath the above date.] 
been presented to that parish by the 


a warrant from the honourable House of Commons, for the 
keys of my house at Lambeth to be delivered to him, that 
prisoners might be brought thither*. I referred myself to 
God, that nothing might trouble me : but then I saw it 
evident, that all that could, should be done to break my 
patience. Had it not been so, somebody else might have 
been sent to Lambeth, and not Layton, who had been cen 
sured in the Star-Chamber to lose his ears, for a base and a 
most virulent libel against bishops and the Church-govern 
ment established by law : in which book of his [were many 
things ! ] which in some times might have cost him dearer. 

The same day it was ordered by the honourable House of 
Commons, that Mr. Glyn, Mr. Whitlock, Mr. Hill, or any 
two of them, should take care for the securing of the public 
library belonging to the See of Canterbury, the books, writ 
ings, evidences, and goods in Lambeth-House, and to take the 
keys into their custody u : and a reference to the Committee, 
to prepare an ordinance for the regulating of Lambeth-House 
for a prison, in the manner as Winchester- House is regulated x . 

Jan. 5. And upon Janua. 5, a final order from both Houses came for 
the settling of Lambeth prison: in which order it was in 
cluded, that all my wood and coal then in the house should 
remain there for the use of the soldiers. And when motion 
was made, that I might have some to the Tower for my own 
necessary use, it would not be hearkened to. There was then 
in the house above two hundred pounds worth of wood and 
coal which was mine. 

Janua. 6. The next day I received a letter from the E. of Manchester, 199 

1 [These words were inserted by II. Wharton to complete the sense. Arch 
bishop Bancroft proposed to read, which book of his in some times/ or, in 
which book were many bold passages, which, &c.] 

* [It had been ordered by the House the keys of the libraries and other 
of Commons, Dec. 19, 1642, " That the rooms, where the books, writings, evi- 
prisoners committed to Crosby House dences, and other goods are, into their 
and Gresham College shall be removed custody : and it is referred to the Corn- 
to Lambeth-House, there to be kept mittee that is appointed to consider 
in safe custody, and that Dr. Laiton of fit places for prisons to prepare an 
shall be keeper of that place."] ordinance for the regulating of Lam- 

u ["Ordered, That Mr. Glyn, Mr. beth-House, in* like manner as Win- 

Whitlock, and Mr. Hill do take care chester-House is regulated."] 
for the securing of the public library * [It was voted by the House, Nov. 

belonging to the See of Canterbury, ll,1642,thatWinchester-Houseshould 

the books, writings, evidences, and be made a prison ; and the House of 

goods in Lambeth-House, and to take Lords agreed to that vote, Nov. 14.] 


commanding me, in the name of the House, to give All- 
Hallows, Bread-street, to Mr. Seaman y. This I was no way 
moved at ; because I had before expressed myself to my L. 
of Northumberland, that I would give this benefice, out of 
my respects to his Lp., to Mr. Seaman his chaplain. Yet I 
cannot but observe, that though this was made known to the 
E. of Manchester, yet he would not forbear his letter, that 
the benefice might be given by order, and not seem to come 
from any courtesy of mine to that honourable person. 

T [See vol. iii. p. 248.] 


CAP. XVII. 200 

Januar.26. ON Thursday, Janua. 26, the Bill passed in the Lords 
House for abolishing of Episcopacy a . God be merciful to 
this sinking Church. 

Feb., 3, jjy this time the rectory of Chartham in Kent was fallen 

void, by the death of the Dean of Canterbury b , and in my gift. 
It was a very good benefice, and I saw it would create me 
much trouble in the collating of it. The first onset upon me 
for it was by Dr. Heath; and it was to give it to Mr. Edward 
Corbet of Mcrton College, of which house Dr. Heath had 
formerly been. Very earnest he was with me, and told me 
the L. General c was earnest for him, and that it would be 
carried from me, if I did it not willingly ; which I were better 
do l . My answer was, I could not help that : but Mr. Corbet 

Feb. 14. had many ways disserved me in Oxford, and that certainly 
I would never give it him. So we parted : and though I 
could not be jealous of Dr. Heath, yet neither could I take 2 
it well. And on Tuesday, Feb. 14, I received a letter from 
his Majesty, bearing date January 17, (91) in which letters 
the King commands me to give Chartham to one Mr. Red- 
dinge, a man of good note in the Church ; or if I were other 
wise commanded by Parliament not to give, then to lapse it 
to him, that he might give it. I returned a present answer 
by word of mouth, and by the same messenger, that I would 
either give, or lapse the benefice, as his Majesty s gracious 
letters required of me 3 d . 

I was now in a fine case between the King and the Parlia 
ment : one I was sure to offend. Yet these letters of the 
King s came happily in one respect : for that very afternoon, 

if I did ... better do. on opposite page.] 

yet . . . take originally written yet 1 could not take ] 

* I returned ... of me. inserted afterwards, part on opposite page.] 

[See Lords Journals, vol. v. p. d [See the King s letter, vol. iii. 

572.] p. 249 ; on which, and the previous 

b [Isaac Bargrave.] page, will be found other notes illus- 

c [Rob. Devereux, third Earl of trative of this passage.] 



the E. of Warwick came to me to the Tower, and after a few 
fair words bestowed on me, drew out an order of Parliament, 
to give Chartham to one Mr. Culmer e , who his Lp. said was 
a very worthy man ; and perhaps I might have believed his 
Lp., had I not known the contrary : but I well knew him to 
be ignorant, and with his ignorance, one of the most daring 
schismatics in all that country. This order of Parliament 
bare date Feb. 4 f , but was not showed me till then. My 
answer to my Lord was, that I had received a letter from his 
Majesty, which required me to give that benefice to another 
man, or else lapse it to him ; and therefore humbly desired 
his Lordship to do me good offices in the honourable House, 
considering in what difficulties I was, and how many great 
livings I had given by orders of Parliament, and none at the 
King s command till now. So we parted. 

After this, Mr. Culmer came to me about the benefice, and 
protested his conformity to the Church. I think the man 
forgot that I knew both him and his ways. I told him I had 
given my Lord of Warwick my answer. But Mr. Culmer 
rested not so : but got a servant of mine down the stairs to 
him, and there was very earnest with him to know, whether 
201 it were not possible to work me to give him Chartharn. 
And then out of the abundance of his honesty and worthiness, 
offered my servant a hundred and fifty pound to procure him 
the benefice : and added, that he should have no cause to 
distrust him, for he should have the money presently paid 
him. This is as worthy a piece of simony as need to be : and 
but that the E. of Warwick is a man of honour, and unfit to 
stoop to such base courses, it is enough to make a man think 
Mr. Culmer would have been very thankful to his Lp. for so 
much pains, as to come to the Tower and solicit for him. 

The Earl of Warwick, at his next opportunity in the House, 
told the Lords, that whereas they had made an order, that 

e [Richard Culmer had been ejected formed, That the benefice of Chart- 
from Croodneston in Kent, for not ham, near Canterbury, is now actually 
reading the Book of Sports, which void, being in the gift of the Arch- 
made him a bitter enemy to Laud. bishop of Cant., it is ordered, That Mr. 
He was thrust into the living of Min- Richard Culmer, a painful minister, 
ster, on the ejection of Meric Casau- who was deprived of his living for not 
bon. He is notorious for having grossly reading the Book for Sabbath Sports, 
profaned Canterbury Cathedral. See shall be recommended to the Arch- 
more in Wood, F. 0. i. 447 ] bishop of Canterbury to be minister 

[" Feb. 4, 1G42. of Chartham aforesaid."] 

" The House being this day in- 

LAUD. VOL. iv. c 


the Archbishop of Canterbury should give Chartham to Mr. 
Culmer, a very worthy preacher ] ; he had been with me 
himself about it, and that I had pretended letters from the 
King, and refused to obey their order. This was like to have 
stirred great heat against me, but that a lord stood up and 
doubted of the order: putting them in mind, that the Ld. 
General was engaged for this benefice for Mr. Corbet, and 
had left the care of it upon himself and some other lords in 
his absence. Hereupon there was inquiry made, when, and 
how, that order passed 2 for Culmer, and it was found to be 
slipped out at a very empty house. So the E. of Warwick 
excused the matter, that he knew not of the 3 Ld. General s 
purpose ; and so the business slept, and never awaked more 
for Culmer. 

The Lord Brook was now in action. A bitter enemy he 
was to the Church, and her government by bishops. On 
Mar. 2, March 2, he was going to give onset upon the Close of the 
cathedral at Lichfield : and as he was taking view of the 
place, from a window in a house opposite to the Close, and 
his beaver up, so that a musket at such a distance could have 
done him but little harm ; yet was he shot in the left eye, 
and killed dead in the place without speaking one words. 
Whence I shall observe three things : First, that this great 
and known enemy to cathedral churches died thus fearfully 
in the assault of a cathedral. A fearful manner of death in 
such a quarrel ! Secondly, that this happened upon Saint 
Chad s 4 day, of which saint that cathedral bears the name. 
Thirdly, that this lord coming from dinner about two years 
since 5 , from the Lord Herbert s house in Lambeth, upon 
some discourse of St. Paul s Church, then in their eye upon 
the water, said to some young lords that were with him, ( that 
he hoped to live to see that one stone of that building should 
not be left upon another. But that church stands yet, and 
that eye is put out that hoped to see the ruins of it. Many 
heavy accidents have already fallen out in these unnatural 

preacher; originally written * divine ; ] 2 [ passed interlined.] 
the orig. my ] 4 [ Chad s originally written Cedd s ] 

about . . . since, in margin.] 

[See notes on corresponding passage in Diary.] 


wars ; and God alone knows, how many more shall, before 
they end : but I intend no history but of my own sad mis 
fortunes ; nor would I have mentioned this, but that it relates 
to the Church, which, for my calling s sake, I take as a part, 
and a near one, of myself. 

(92) On Friday, Mar. 24, one Mr. Ford came to me to the Mar. 24, 

1 f\A ^ 

Tower, and told me, there was a plot to send me, and my 
L. of Ely, Bishop Wren, as delinquents, to New England, 
within fourteen days : and that Mr. Wells, a minister that 
202 came thence, offered wagers of it. The meeting where he 
heard this, was (he said) at Mr. Bankes , a mercer s house in 
Friday-street, a son-in-law of Mr. Foord s. This gentleman 
told me he was a Suffolk man ; but I never saw him before, 
and was doubtful of the truth of his relation : partly, because 
I knew no motive he had to take such care of me, being a 
stranger to him ; and partly, because it could not sink into 
me, that the honourable Houses, after so long imprisonment, 
would send me into such a banishment, without hearing me 
or my cause. Yet he protested the truth of it very deeply, 
and wished me to endeavour to prevent it. That I knew not 
how to do ; for 2 to petition against it upon such a private 
information, might rather call it on, than keep it off, seeing 
what an edge there was against me. Therefore I referred 
myself to God, my constant anchor, and so rested my 
thoughts as well as I could. 

It was now known in the House to the 3 Ld. General s 
friends, that I had a resolution not to give Chartham to 
Mr. Corbet : and it may be it was thought also, that I did 
but pretend the King s letters about it ; and that if some 
other man were named, against whom I had no exception, it 
might 4 be that I would give it: and if I did give it, then 
they should discover, that either I had 110 letters from the 
King ; or that I could make bold to dispense with them, so 
Mr. Corbet were not the man. And if they could have 
gained this upon me, that notwithstanding his Majesty s 
letters, I would have given that benefice to another man, they 
would then have recalled their order h from him, and com- 

1 [ they orig. it ] 2 [ for orig. and ] 

3 [ the orig. my ] 4 [ might orig. may J 

b For Culmer. 

c 2 


manflcd me for Mr. Corbet. That this my conjecture hath 
truth in it, seems evident to me by all the future carnage of 
this business. 

For one Mr. Hudson came and preached at the Tower, and 

Mar. 28, g ave & U men ver y good content : and on Tuesday, Mar. 28, 
he brought me an order from the Lords, requiring me to give 
Chartham to him. And this order was known in the Tower ; 
for some prisoners of note said, I might do well to give it 
. him, being so good a preacher. My answer to him was fair ; 
yet I told him truly, that the King had written to me for 
another : that I had promised to give it, or lapse it, as his 
Majesty required me : that the King never asked any of 
me till now : that I hoped the Parliament would not take it 
ill, that I gave this one at the King s requisition, since I had 
already given as many benefices upon their orders as came 
to above eight hundred pounds a year, passing by my own 
friends and chaplains, honest and able men : and for his 
particular, I might live to pleasure him with another, so I 
were not over-pressed concerning this. 

Hudson either mistook my 1 answer, or wilfully misreported 
it and me to the House ; and thereupon came another order 

Apri. 11. to me of April 11, to give him Chartham. I was not willing 
to be mistaken again, and therefore desired Mr. Lieutenant 

Apri. 13. to deliver me a petition to the House on Thursday, Apri. 13, 
in which I set forth my true answer, as is above expressed, 
and in all humility desired their favour. That very day 
another quick order was made for Hudson, and brought to 

Apri. 14. me the next day, April 14. I petitioned the House again, 
the same day, with all submission ; yet professed, that I could 
not disobey the King in so fair a command. 203 

When all this would not serve, the mask was pulled off, 

Apri. 21. and a peremptory order 2 , bearing date April 21, was brought 
to me on Saturday, Apri. 22, to collate Chartham upon Mr. 

Apri. 24. Ed. Corbet 1 . And upon Monday, April 24, I humbly gave 
my answer, as before; but in the softest terms I could express 
it, and in a petition J. 

1 [ my orig. the ] 2 [ order, orig. order was brought to me, ] 

[Not in Lords Journals.] Archbishop of Cant. desiring, he being 

[" Monday. April 24. engaged both in duty and promise to 

" Upon reading the petition of the his Majesty, for the presenting a minis- 


Monday, Mali 1, the windows of my chapel at Lambeth Mail i. 
were defaced, and the steps to the communion-table torn up. 
And on Tuesday, Maii 2, the cross in Cheapside was taken Mail 2. 
down, to cleanse that great street of superstition. The same 
day, in prosecution of the former plot, March 24, it was 
moved in the House of Commons to send me to New England 
but it was rejected. The plot (93) was laid by Peters, Wells, 
and others of that crew, that so they might insult over me. 

Then followed an exemplary piece of justice, and another Mail 9 
of mercy. Of justice : for my goods in Lambeth-House, and 
my books, were seized upon, and my goods set to sale by 
Captain Guest, Dickins, and Layton. And my goods 1 were 
sold, and scarce at a third part of their worth, all save what 
Layton took to himself, who usually said all was his, house, 
land, goods, and all. This was on Tuesday, Maii 9. And 
all this before any proceedings had against me 2 . And of 
mercy : for the same day there came out an order for my 
further restraint, that I might not go out of my lodging 
without my keeper, so much as to take air. 

Much about this time I received another letter from his 
Majesty, in which he requires me (as he had formerly done, 
for Chartham in particular), that as oft as any benefice or 
other spiritual promotion whatever should fall void in my 
gift, I should dispose it only to such as his Majesty should 
name unto me ; or if any command lay otherwise upon me 
from either or both Houses of Parliament, I should then let 
them fall into lapse, that he might dispose of them to men 
of worth 3 . 

Upon Tuesday, Maii 16, there came out an ordinance of Mali 16. ) 
both Houses 4 , (for now the order was grown up into an Mau 17< 
ordinance,) requiring me to give no benefice, or spiritual 

1 [ my goods in marg. ; orig. they ] 

2 [ And all ... against me. in marg.] 

3 [ Much about . . . worth. This paragraph is in the orig. MS. inserted in 
the blank page opposite to p. 91.] 

4 [ requiring ine orig. written here.] 

ter to the rectory of Chartham in the with the House of Commons to-mor- 
county of Kent, that his duty to his row about expediting the trial of the 
Majesty may be an acceptable answer said Archbishop of Cant., and to con- 
to their Lordships, and that he may sider how the jurisdiction and dispos- 
be no more pressed in this particular. ing of livings may be sequestered out 
" Ordered, To have a conference of his power and disposing."] 


Mali 20. 

Mail 26. 

Mail 23. 

promotion now void, or to be void at any time before my 
trial, but with leave and order of both Houses of Parlia 
ment V This ordinance was delivered unto me the next day ; 
and upon the reading of it I foresaw a cloud rising over me 
about this business of Chartham, for which I did assure 
myself the ordinance was made; and soon 1 after came 
another ordinance 2 1 , requiring me by virtue of the said 
ordinance to give Chartham to Mr. Corbet. This order was 
not brought to me till Friday, May 26. Then it was brought 
unto me by Mr. Corbet himself, and Sir John Corbet, a 
Parliament man, came with him. Now upon the Tuesday 
before I had sent an humble petition" 1 to the Lords for main- 

[ soon orig. presently ] 

2 [ ordinance/ orig. order/] 

k The ordinance may be found at 
large in Rush w. par. iii. vol. ii. p. 320. 
[" Whereas William Laud,Archbishop 
of Canterbury, standeth impeached in 
this present Parliament for high trea 
son, and for divers other great offences 
and misdemeanours ; and by reason 
of many great and weighty businesses 
he cannot yet be brought to trial for 
the said offences and misdemeanours ; 
and he, in respect of his said Arch 
bishopric of Canterbury, hath power 
to give and collate fit Clerks to divers 
Parsonages, Vicarages, Prebends, and 
other ecclesiastical promotions and 
preferments : and if any of them should 
become void, and he left to prefer 
whom he please to the same, the same 
may prove very inconvenient, he be 
stowing them upon unfit and unworthy 
persons ; Be it therefore ordered and or 
dained by the Lords and Commons in 
this present Parliament, That in case 
any of the aforesaid Parsonages, Vicar 
ages, Prebends, or other ecclesiastical 
promotions or preferments, now be, or 
shall hereafter, and before the trial of 
the said Lord Archbishop, become void, 
that the said Lord Archbishop of Can 
terbury shall forbear to present or col 
late any person or persons thereunto 
without the leave and order of both 
Houses of Parliament. And it is 
further ordered and ordained, That the 
said Lord Archbishop shall from time 
to time, until his said trial, present 
and collate such fit person or persons 
to every such Parsonage, Vicarage, 
Prebend, and other ecclesiastical pre 
ferment, as aforesaid, which now are, 
or hereafter before his said trial shall 

become void, as by both Houses of 
Parliament shall be nominated and 
appointed. And it is further ordered 
by the said Lords and Commons in 
Parliament, That all Archdeacons, 
Kegisters, and other officers, ministers, 
and persons whatsoever, shall forbear 
to give or make any admission, insti 
tution, collation, or induction of any 
person or persons whatsoever, which 
by the said Archbishop shall be pre 
sented in or to any such Parsonage, 
Vicarage, Prebend, or other ecclesias 
tical preferment, other than such per 
sons as shall be nominated and ap 
pointed by both Houses of Parliament, 
as aforesaid. And it is lastly ordered, 
That the Lord Archbishop, and the 
Churchwardens of every parish, and 
other officers of the Church, where any 
Parsonage, Vicarage, Prebend, or other 
ecclesiastical promotions or prefer 
ments, in the donation or gift of the 
said Archbishop, are, shall within two 
months after the respective avoidance 
thereof, give notice of such avoidance 
to the Lord Speaker of the House of 
Peers for the time being."] 

1 [This order of May 20 was passed 
on Corbet s petition. See Lords 
Journals, vol. vi. p. 54.] 

m ["May 23, 1643. 

" The humble petition of Wm. Arch 
bishop of Cant, was read, 
" Shewing, 

" That he hath neither land, lease, 
nor money; that the small store of 
plate which he had is long since 
melted down for his necessary support 
and expenses, caused by his present 
troubles ; that his rents and profits 


tenance ; the prayer of which petition was as follows : 
Humbly prayeth that your Lps. will take his sad condition 
into your honourable l consideration, that somewhat may be 
allowed him out of his estate to supply the necessities of life ; 
assuring himself that in honour and justice you will not suffer 
him either to beg or starve. And your petitioner shall 2 ever 
204 pray, &c. The answer which this petition had in the Lords 
House was, Let him give Chartham as is ordered, and then 
we will consider of maintenance 11 / So my petition was sent 
down to the House of Commons 3 . To the last forenamed 
order, I gave my former answer, and humbly petitioned the 
Lords accordingly, Maii 27 following 4 . So they departed, 
and as they went down the hill together, Sir John was over 
heard to say to Mr. Corbet thus : The Archbishop hath 
petitioned the Lords for maintenance, and they have sent his 
petition to the Commons ; and since he will not give you the 
benefice, Fll warrant you he shall have no maintenance. 
And so accordingly my petition was rejected in the House 
of Commons. 

1 [ honourable in Lords Journals lordships ] 

2 [ shall omitted in Lords Journals.] 

3 [After Commons. orig. written, To the forenamed petition of Mr. and 
erased.] 4 [ and humbly . . . following. in marg.] 

are sequestered, and now all his goods petition, thought fit that he should 

taken from him, and no maintenance have some maintenance, and referred 

at all allowed him : insomuch that, if the petition, and order for nominating 

some friends of his had not, in com- Corbet, to the House of Commons. See 

passion of his wants, sent him some Lords Journals, vol. vi. p. 58.J 

little supply, he had not been able to [The Archbishop s petition of May 

subsist to this present ; and now that 27 was read in the House of Lords 

this supply is at the last, he humbly May 30, and an ordinance made to 

prayeth, &c. (as in text.) W. Cant. "] command Sir Nath. Brent to give 

n [The House, on the Archbishop s Corbet institution to Chartham.] 



Mail 31. T HIS was Wednesday, the last of May : it was the Fast- 
day. A search came betimes in the morning into the Tower 
upon all the prisoners, for letters and other papers. But 
I have some reasons to think the search had a special aim 
at me. First, because following me thus close about Char- 
tham as they did, I conceive they were desirous to see 
whether I had any such letter from the King as I pre 
tended : if I had not, they had advantage against me for my 
falsehood ; if I had, they meant to see what secret passed 
from his Majesty to me. Secondly, because I had lately 
petitioned for maintenance, and by this search they might 
see what I had by me. And he that searched my chamber, 
told me, upon occasion, that he was to take all papers which 
might discover delinquents estates. Thirdly, because all 
other prisoners had their papers re-delivered them before the 
searchers went from the Tower, except some few verses of 
Sir Ed. Hern s; but mine were carried to the Committee, 
yet with promise, that I should have them again within two 
or three days. Fourthly, because as Layton was put into 
Lambeth- House, so my implacable enemy, Mr. Pryn, was 
picked out (as a man whose malice might be trusted) to 
make the search upon me. And he did it exactly. 

The manner of the search upon me was thus: Mr. Pryn 
came into the Tower, with other searchers, so soon as the 
gates were open. Other men went to other prisoners. He 
made haste to my lodging, commanded the warder to open 
my doors, left two musketeers sentinels 1 below, that no man 
might go in or out, and one at the stair -head , with three 
other, which had their muskets ready cocked, he came into 
my chamber, and found me in bed (as were also my servants 
in theirs). I presently thought upon my blessed Saviour, 
when Judas led in the swords and staves about Him. Mr. 
Pryn, seeing me safe in bed, falls first to my pockets to rifle 
them ; and by that time my two servants came running in, 
1 [ sentinels in inarg.] 



half ready. I demanded the sight of his warrant ; he showed 
it me, and therein was expressed, that he should search my 
pockets. The warrant il came from the Close Committee, and 
the hands that were to it were these : E. Manchester^ 
W. Saye and Scale c , Wharton d , H. Vane e , Gilbert Gerard f , 
and John Pirn e. 

Did they remember when they gave this warrant, how 
odious it was to Parliaments, and some of themselves, to have 
the pockets of men searched ? 

(94) When my pockets had been sufficiently ransacked, 
I rose and x got my clothes about me, and so half ready, with 
my gowii upon my shoulders, he held me in the search till 
past nine of the clock in the morning. He took from me 
twenty and one bundles of papers, which I had prepared for 
my defence; the two letters before named, which came to 
me from his gracious Majesty about Chartham and my other 
benefices 2 ; the Scottish Service-book, with such directions 

1 [ rose and interlined.] 

2 [ the two . . . benefices; on opposite page.] 

a The warrant may be found in 
Fryn s Breviate of the Life of the 
Archbishop, p. 28. 

[" By virtue of an order of both 
Houses of Parliament, these are to 
authorize and require you to repair 
unto Colonel JV1 an waring at the 
Guild-Hall to-morrow morning, about 
4 of the clock, and to receive from 
him ten foot soldiers, appointed to 
attend and assist you in the service 
hereafter mentioned. And you are 
further required and authorized, with 
the soldiers before mentioned, to re 
pair unto the Tower of London, and 
there to search all the prisoners re 
maining under restraint, by order of 
either of the Houses of Parliament, or 
of this Committee, and to seize upon 
all letters and papers, and to see them 
put into some safe place, to be perused 
by such as shall be thereunto autho- 
rixed. And you are forthwith to cer 
tify us, what you shall have done in 
execution hereof; and in the mean 
time so to sever and restrain their per 
sons, that they speak not one with 
another, nor with any other ; that 
thereupon some further order and 
direction may be given. And the 
said Colonel Manwaring , as also the 

Lieutenant of the Tower, and all 
other his Majesty s officers and loving 
subjects, are hereby required to be 
aiding and assisting unto you in 
execution of the premises. And for 
your and their so doing, this shall be 
your warrant." (Signed as in the 
text.) " To William Prinne, of Lin 
coln s Inn, Esq. ; William Ball, Esq. ; 
Ralph Farmer, Gent. ; William Bendy, 
Gent. ; Henry Blake, Gentleman."] 

6 [Edw. Montagu, mentioned pre 
viously in this history as Lord Kim- 
bolton. He became Earl of Man 
chester, Nov. 7, 1642.] 

c [William Fiennes, first Viscount 
Say and Scale. Laud s inveterate op 
ponent .] 

d [Philip Wharton, third Baron 
Wharton. He was at the battle of 
Edge Hill, and took an active part in 
the rebellion. He lived till 1696; 
and became Privy Counsellor to Wil 
liam III.] 

e [Henry Vane the younger.] 

f "[Sir Gilbert Gerrard, M.P. for 

e [M.P. for Tavistock. The active 
opponent of Straftbrd and Laud. See 
his character in Clarendon, Hist, of 
Rebellion, vol. iv. p. 437.] 


as accompanied it; a little book, or diary, containing all 
the occurrences of my life ; and my Book of Private Devo- 206 
tions ; both these last written through with my own hand. 
Nor could I get him to leave this last ; but he must needs 
see what passed between God and me: a thing, I think, 
scarce ever offered to any Christian. The last place which 
he rifled, was a trunk which stood by my bed-side. In that 
he found nothing, but about forty pound in money for my 
necessary expenses (which he meddled not with), and a 
bundle of some gloves. This bundle he was so careful to 
open, as that he caused each glove to be looked into ; upon 
this I tendered him one pair of the gloves, which he refusing, 
I told him he might take them and fear no bribe, for he had 
already done me all the mischief he could, and I asked no 
favour of him, So he thanked me, took the gloves, bound 
up my papers, left two sentinels at my door, which were not 
dismissed till the next day noon, and went his way. 

I was somewhat troubled to see myself used in this man 
ner ; but knew no help but in God, and the patience which 
He had given me. And how His gracious providence over 
me, and His goodness to me, wrought upon all this, I shall 
in the end discover, and will magnify, however it succeed 
with me. 


207 CAP. XIX. 

UPON my last l answer to the House concerning Chartham, 
there came out an ordinance against me, to take all my tem 
poralities into the Parliament s hands; that so they might 
give not only Chartham, but all things else which fell into 
my gift : and because it is an ordinance of a great power 
and extent, I shall set it down, as it was printed and pub 
lished, Junii 10, being Saturday a . 

" Whereas, by an ordinance of the Lords and Commons, Junii 10, 
in this present Parliament, of the 17th of May, 1643, the 1643 
Archbishop of Canterbury is required, from time to time 
until his trial, to collate such fit persons unto any ecclesias 
tical preferment in his patronage, as shall by both Houses 
be nominated unto him ; and in pursuance of the said ordi 
nance, another ordinance of the Lords and Commons, passed 
the 20th of the same month, requiring the said Archbishop 
to collate upon Ed. Corbet, Fellow of Merton College in the 
University of Oxford, the Rectory of Chartham in the county 
of Kent, void by the death of Dr. Bargrave, the last incum 
bent ; and whereas the said Archbishop b refuseth obedience 
to the said ordinance : It is therefore ordered, and be it so 
ordained by the Lords and Commons in Parliament, that all 
the temporalities of the Archbishop of Canterbury be hereby 
sequestered, by, and unto the Parliament ; and William L. 
Archbishop of Canterbury suspended c ab officio et beneficio, 
et omni et omnimoda jurisdictione archiepiscopali, until he be 
either convicted or acquitted of high treason, for which he 
stands now accused ; and whatsoever livings, dignities, or 
ecclesiastical promotions, in the said Archbishop s gift or 
collation, are, or hereafter shall be void, shall henceforth be 
instituted and inducted unto by the Archbishop s Vicar- 

1 [ last interlined.] 

a It maybe found also in Rushw. b of Canterbury Rush*, 
par. iii. vol. ii. p. 330. e be susp. Rushw. 


General, or any other having authority in this d behalf/upon 
the nomination and recommendation of both Houses of Par 
liament, during the time of the suspension and sequestration 
aforesaid. And upon this ordinance it is ordered, and be it 
so ordained by the Lords and Commons in Parliament, That 
the said Ed. Corbet be, and is hereby nominated and recom 
mended, forthwith upon sight hereof, to be admitted, insti 
tuted, and inducted by the Vicar- General aforesaid, or any 
other having authority in this e behalf, into the said Rectory 
of Chartham, ratione suspensions Domini Gulielmi Archie- 
piscopi Cantuariensis f temporalium archiepiscopatus, in mani- 
bus supremcB curia Parliament}, jam existentium, the same 
belonging unto their gift. And it is hereby further ordained, 
by the Lords and Commons in Parliament, That during the 
suspension and sequestration aforesaid, the jurisdiction of 
the said Archbishop shall be executed and exercised by his 
Vicar- General, and other his inferior judges and officers, as 
formerly the same hath been." 

This ordinance was laid as a great punishment upon me : 
but I humbly thank both Houses for it, as for the greatest 
benefit they have bestowed on me since my troubles; espe 
cially since the sequestration of my jurisdiction, Novemb. 2, 208 
16-41 s. For it appears before in this history 1 , how ever since 
that time I have been troubled for every (95) benefice which 
hath fallen in my gift ; disenabled to prefer any friend or 
chaplain of my own, were he never so worthy : and (which 
is worse by much) forced to admit such men, how unworthy 
soever, as were by them 2 nominated to me, or else fall under 
a contempt of their ordinances, and such arbitrary punish 
ment as they shall thereupon load me : whereas now, I am 
freed both from the trouble and the sin of admitting un 
worthy persons into the Church service, and leave them to 
the business, and the account for it. 

Junii n, On Sunday, Junii 11, one came and preached at the 
Tower (his name I could not learn). In his sermon, after he 

1 [ in tins history, on opposite page.] 

2 [ by thtm in nsar^.] 

d his Rushw. f ctaefrucslrationi* Rush*, 

his Rushvr. s [See vol. iii. p 450.] 


had liberally railed on me, he told the auditory, that Mr. Pryn 
had found a book in ray pocket, which would discover great 
things : this to inflame the people against me ; et si non 
satis insanircnt sua sponte, instiyare h . This is zealous preach 
ing ! God forgive their malice. 

An ordinance passed on Monday, Junii 12, that the Synod Junii 12. 
of Divines, formerly named by both Houses, (not chosen by 
the Clergy,) should begin to sit on the first of July following : Julii 1. 
and they did begin to sit that day; Dr. Twiss 1 in the 
chair; and he 1 made the Latin sermon. The names of these 
synodical men are to be seen in the ordinance, printed 
Junii 12 k ; where any man that will, may see a great, if 
not the greater part of them, Brownists 2 , or Independents, 
or New-England-Ministers, if not worse 3 , or at the best 
refractory persons to the doctrine or discipline, or both, of the 
Church of England established by law, and now brought 
together to reform it. An excellent conclave ! But I pray 
God, that befal not them, which Tally observes fell upon 
Epicurus, Si qua corrigere voluit, deteriora fecit .- 1 He made 
everything worse that he went about to mend. I shall for 
my part never deny, but that the Liturgy of the Church of 
England may be made better ; but I am sure withal it may 
easily be made worse. And howsoever, it would become this 
Synod well, to remember, that there is a Convocation of the 
English Prelates and Clergy, lawfully chosen and summoned, 
and by no supreme or legal authority as yet dissolved. And 
can there be two national Synods at one time, but that one 
must be irregular ? Belike we shall fall to it in the Dona- 
tists way : they set up altare contra altare in Africk ; and 
these will set up synodum contra synodum in England : and 
this, without God s infinite mercy, will bring forth a schism, 
fierce enough to rent and tear religion out of this kingdom ; 
which God, for the merits and mercies of Christ, forbid. 

he interlined.] 

Several words erased after ; Brownists/] 
if not worse/ in marg.] 

h [See Terent. Andr. iv. 2. 9.] worth, par.iii. vol.ii. (i.e. vol. v.) p. 337.] 
1 [Dr. William Twiss, formerly Fel- ! Cicero, L. 2. Tuscu. Q. [The fol 
low of New College, Vicar of New- lowing appears to be the passage refer- 
bury. Sec his life in Wood, Ath. Ox. red to : "Ita ut ea quae corrigere vult 
iii. 369 seq.] mihi quidem depravare videatur." 
k [This ordinance is given in Rush- De Fin. lib. i. cap. vi.] 


A Committee of the House of Commons sent Mr. Dobson m , 
my Controller, to me to the Tower, to require me to send 
them word under my hand, what originals I had of the 
Articles of Religion established, 156 ?, and 1571. This was 1 

Julii 12. on Wednesday, July 12. And I returned by him the same 
day this answer in writing, with my name to it : " The 
original Articles of 1571 I could never find in my paper-study 
at Lambeth, or anywhere else ; and whether any copy of them . 
were ever left there, I cannot tell. The original Articles 
of 1562, with many hands to them, I did see, and peruse 
there ; but whether the bishops hands were to them or not, 
I cannot remember." This answer satisfied them; but what 209 
their aim was I cannot tell, unless they meant to make a 
search about the two first lines in the twentieth Article, con 
cerning the power of the Church ; in these words : " The 
Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and autho 
rity in controversies of faith : " which words are left out in 
divers printed copies of the Articles, and are not in the one- 
and-twentieth Article of Edw. VI., nor in the Latin copy of 
the Articles 1571 ; but in the original Articles of 1562, the 
words are plain and manifest, without any interlining at all. 
If this were their aim, tis probable we shall see somewhat, 
by what their Synod 2 shall do concerning that Article n . 

Aug. 3. On Tuesday, August 3, my servant, Mr. Edw. Lenthrop, 

came to me, and told me that the day before he met with Sir 
K. Digbye, who had the leave to go out of prison, (by the suit 
of the French Queen,) and to travel into France. But before 
he took his journey, he was to come before a Committee, and 
there, he said, he had been 3 . It seems it was some Com 
mittee about my business ; for he told Mr. Lenthrop, and 
wished him to tell it me, that the Committee took special 
notice of his acquaintance with me, and examined him 
strictly concerning me and my religion, whether he did not 
know that I was offered to be made a Cardinal ; and many 

i [ waa* in maig.] 2 [ Synod in marg.] 

3 [ and there . . . been. in marg.] 

m [Walter Dobson. The Archbishop more fully stated by the Archbishop 

bequeathed him a legacy of 20. See in his Speech at Bastwick, Burton, 

Will.] and Pryime s Censure, pp. 8284 in 

n [The evidence in favour of the marg. See Works, vol. vi.] 
genuineness of this disputed clause, is 


other such like things. That he answered them, That lie 
knew nothing of any Cardinalship offered me : and for my 
religion, he had reason to think I was truly and really as 
I professed myself; for I had laboured with him against his 
return to the Church of Rome : (which is true, and I have 
some of my papers yet to show.) But he further sent me 
word, that their malice was great against me ; though he saw 
plainly, (96) they were like men that groped in the dark, and 
were to seek what to lay to my charge. But soon after mut- 
terings arose,, that Mr. Pryn in his search had found great 
matters against me, and that now I should be brought to 
trial out of hand. 

Some men now, it seems, made overture for peace, and 
some good hopes of it began to show themselves (as it was 
then said) in both Houses. This was on Saturday, Aug. 5 : Aug. 5, 
but there wanted not those which made themserVes ready for 1( 
battle ; for on Sunday, Aug. 6, printed bills were pasted up Aug. 6. 
in London, to animate the people to go to Westminster 
against peace ; and the like bills were read in some churches. 
Excellent church-work ! And on Monday, Aug. 7, some Aug. 7. 
thousands, men and women, went to the Parliament, and 
clamorously petitioned against peace ; and the next day five Aug. 8. 
or six hundred women, and these 1 were as earnest for peace: 
but ye may observe, tis but hundreds for thousands that 
came against it. Yet on Wednesday, Aug. 9, the number of Aug. 9. 
women increased, when, it seems, men durst not appear. 
But their desire for peace was answered by some troops of 
horse which were sent for, by which some of the women were 
killed, and divers of them shrewdly wounded. God of His 
mercy set an end to these bloody distractions ! In the midst 
of this fury of the people, on Thursday, Aug. 10, came out Aug. 10. 
Rome s Master-Piece . This book Mr. Pryn sets forth in 
print, upon occasion of some papers which he had in his 
search taken from me ; and twas done to drive the people 
210 headlong into mischief, whose malice against me 2 needed 
not his setting on. After this the Diurnal and other 

1 [ these interlined.] 2 [ me interlined.] 

[This production, with the Archbishop s marginal notes, will be found in 
vol. vi.] 


pamphlets began to mention me, and that now a charge was 
drawing up against me. 

Aug. 11. Upon Friday, Aug. 11, Sir Robert Harlowe was made 
Lieutenant of the Tower, in the room of Sir Jo. Conniers ; 

Aug. 15. and on Tuesday, Aug, 15, he removed Mr. Bray, who had 
been my warder from my first commitment to the Tower, and 
put Mr. Cowes, another of the warders, to be my keeper. 

Aug. 19. The cause of this change I could never learn. The nineteenth 
of Aug. after, being Saturday, Alderman Pennington, then 
Lord Mayor of London, was made Lieutenant of the Tower, 
and took possession of it. 

Aug. 20. The next day being Sunday, in the afternoon one preached 
in the Tower church in a buff-coat and a scarf, but had a 
gown on. He told the people, they were all blessed that 
died in this cause, with much more such stuff. His name 
(as I then heard) was KemP, parson or vicar of Loe-Layton^, 
in Essex, and then captain of a troop of horse. Quam bene 

Aug. 27. conveniunt r ! But the next Sunday, Aug. 27, during the 
afternoon sermon, a letter, subscribed John Browne, was 
thrust under the door of my prison. When I opened it, I 
found it a most bitter libel. God forgive the author of it ! 

September On Monday, Septem. 11, the new Lieutenant, the Lord 
Mayor, changed my warder again, removed Mr. Cowes, and 
put Mr. Spencer to attend me. And when I moved him, that 
I might not have such often 1 change put upon me, as no 
other prisoner had, his answer was, that if he did not remove 
Mr. Cowes, the Committee would. So I knew not how to 
help myself, but by patience. 

Then came the Covenant, that excellent piece of 

from Scotland, and was sworn by the Parliament and the 

Scptemb. Synod, in St. Margaret s Church in Westminster, on Monday, 
September 25. The effects which followed were as strict as 

Octol>. 3. the Covenant ; for on Monday, Octob. 3, the order made that 
time twelvemonth was renewed, and all prisoners locked up, 
and no man suffered to speak with them, but by leave from 
the Lieutenant, and in the presence of their several warders 

1 [ often in margin.] 

P [Samuel Kerne, or Kern. See a i Low-Laighton. 
full account of him, Wood, Ath. Ox. r [See Ovid, Metam. ii. 846.] 
iii. 907 ] 



211 CAP. XX. 

BY this time Mr. Pryn s malice had hammered out some-" 
thing; and on Tuesday, Octob. 24, an order was brought me Oetob.24. 
from the Lords, dated Octob. 23, with a copy of ten additional 
Articles a , brought up by the Commons against me. This 

r a See the Articles, and Order of the 
Lords made thereupon, apud Kush- 
worth, par. iii. vol. ii. pp. 817, 820 ; 
apud Pr. pp. 33 41. 

[Such of the additional Articles as 
are not mentioned in the following 
History, are here given from Pr^nne s 
Cant. Doom, pp. 38 40. 

"1. That the said Archbishop of 
Canterbury, to introduce an arbitrary 
government within this realm, and to 
destroy Parliaments, in the third and 
fourth years of his Majesty s reign 
that now is, a Parliament being then 
called and sitting at Westminster, 
traitorously and maliciously caused 
the said Parliament to be dissolved, 
to the great grievance of his Majesty s 
subjects, and prejudice of the common 
wealth ; and soon after the dissolu 
tion thereof, gave divers propositions 
under his hand to George, then Duke 
of Buckingham, casting therein many 
false aspersions upon the said Parlia 
ment, calling it a factious Parliament, 
and falsely affirming that it had cast 
many scandals upon his Majesty, and 
had used him like a child in his mi 
nority, styling them Puritans, and 
commending the Papists for harmless 
and peaceable subjects. 

"4. That for the end and purpose 
aforesaid (to advance the Canons and 
power ecclesiastical above the law of 
the land), about seven years last past, 
a judgment being given in his Ma 
jesty s Court of King s Bench against 
one Burley, a parson, being a man of 
bad life and conversation, in an infor 
mation upon the statute of 21 Hen. 
VIII. for wilful non-residency, the 
said Archbishop, by solicitations and 
other undue means used to the judges 
of the court, caused execution upon 
the said judgment to be stayed; and 
being moved therein, and made ac- 
LAUD. VOL. iv. 

quainted with the bad life and con 
versation of the said person, he said 
that he had spoken to the judges for 
him, and that he would never suffer a 
judgment to pass against any Clergy 
man by niliil dicit. 

" 8. That the said Archbishop, 
about four years last past, at West 
minster aforesaid, said that there 
must be a blow given to the Church, 
such as hath not been yet given, before 
it could be brought to conformity; 
declaring thereby his intention to be 
to shake and alter the true Protestant 
religion established in the Church of 

" 10. That a little before the calling 
of the last Parliament, anno 1640, a 
vote being then passed, and a resolu 
tion taken at the Council Table, by 
the advice of the said Archbishop, for 
assisting of the King in extraordinary 
ways, if the said Parliament should 
prove peevish, and refuse to supply 
his Majesty ; the said Archbishop 
wickedly and maliciously advised his 
Majesty to dissolve the said Parlia 
ment, and accordingly the same was 
dissolved. And presently after, the 
said Archbishop told his Majesty that 
now he was absolved from all rules of 
government, and left free to use extra 
ordinary ways for his supply. 

" For all which matters and things 
the said Commons assembled in Par 
liament, in the name of themselves 
and of all the Commons of England, 
do impeach the said Archbishop of 
Canterbury of high treason, and other 
crimes and misdemeanours, tending 
to the subversion of our religion, laws, 
and liberties, and to the utter ruin of 
this Church and Commonwealth. 

" And the said Commons, by pro 
testation saving to themselves the 
liberty of exhibiting at any time 



order required me to make my answer in writing by the 
thirtieth of the same month. These Articles charged me not 
with treason only, as the former did, but with treason, arid 
other high crimes and misdemeanours/ I sent instantly by 
the same messenger a patition b for longer time; for means 
out of my estate to fee my counsel, and bear the necessary 
charge of my trial ; for counsel, and for a solicitor, and some 
servants to attend my business. The Lords, I humbly 

thank them, gave me longer time, and 


me Mr. 

hereafter, any further or other accusa 
tion or impeachment against the said 
William Laud, Archbishop of Canter 
bury, and also of replying to the 
answer that he shall make unto the 
said Articles, or any of thorn, or offer 
ing proof of the premises, or any other 
impeachments or accusations that 
shall be exhibited by them, as the 
cause shall (according to the course of 
Parliament) require ; do pray that he, 
the said William Laud, Archbishop 
of Canterbury, may be called to an 
swer the said several crimes and mis 
demeanours, and receive such condign 
punishment as the same shall deserve; 
and that such further proceedings 
may be upon every of them had and 
used against him as is agreeable to 
law and justice." 

The order of the Lords is as fol 
lows : 

"Die Ltmse, 23 October, 1643. 
Ordered, by the Lords in Parliament, 
That the Lord Archbishop of Canter 
bury shall put in his answer in writing 
into this House by the thirtieth day 
of this instant October, unto the par 
ticular Articles, in maintenance of 
their former impeachment of high 
treason, and divers high crimes and 
misdemeanours, brought up from the 
House of Commons against him, and 
remaining now before the Lords in 

b The A.B. s petition may be found 
in Rushw. p. 820 ; Pryn, p. 41. 

[" To the Honourable the Lords as 
sembled in the High Court of Par 

"The humble petition of William. 
Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, 

" Humbly sheweth, 
" That he hath received your Lord 
ships order of October 23, 1643, with 
a copy of the Articles charged against 
him, and requiring him to make answer. 
" Most humbly prayeth that, ac 

cording to an order of that honourable 
House, he may have counsel assigned 
him, and that Master Hcarne and 
Master Chute may be his counsel, and 
may have free liberty to come unto 
him; and that he may have some 
money out of his estate to fee his 
counsel, and defray his other charges, 
he having been for the last whole year 
burdensome to his friends. And fur 
ther, that he may have all his papers 
and books, most of which belong to 
his defence, which Master Prynne 
took from him by order of the Lords, 
delivered unto him, that he may be 
able to answer for himself. That also 
he may have time and means to send 
for his witnesses, which can hardly be 
done in the time limited. And that 
he may have his servants about him, 
to send about his necessary occasions. 
And, lastly, that he may have longer 
time, the Articles being large and 

"And he shall ever pray, &c. 

" W. CANT."] 

c Hern and Chute were assigned 
by order of the Lords, Octob. 24; 
Hales added by their order, Octob. 28. 
See both orders, apud Hush worth, 
p. 821 ; Pryn, pp. 41, 42. Gerrard 
added by their order, Jan. 16. See 
this order also, ibid. p. 825, and 46. 
The first order, apud Heylin s Life 
of Laud, p. 513. [The orders are here 
added : 

" Die Martis, 24 October, 1643. 
Upon the reading of the petition of 
the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, 
this day, in the House, it is ordered 
by the Lords in Parliament, That 
time is given him until Monday, the 
sixth of November, for the putting in 
his answer in writing into this House, 
unto the particular Articles brought 
up from the House of Commons in 
maintenance of their former impeach 
ment of high treason, and divers high 



Hearn d , Mr. Chute 6 , Mr. Hales f ; and, at my petition, added 
Mr. Gerrard g . For money they referred me to the Committee 
of Sequestrations ; but delayed their answer concerning my 
servants, and the papers of my defence which Mr. Pryn took 
from me. For though he promised me a faithful restitution 
of them within three or four days, yet to this day (being 
almost five months after) I had received but three bundles of 
the twenty and one, which he had from me. 

Friday, Octob. 27, I petitioned again, that the papers of Octob. 27. 
my defence, being, as I was informed, in the hands of the 
Close Committee, might be deli(97)vered unto me; and sent 
my petition, with the order of the Lords annexed, to the 
Committee for Sequestrations. There many were very 
favourable, till Mr. Glyn h was pleased to say, They were not 

crimes and misdemeanours, against 
him. That Master Hearne and Master 
Chute are hereby assigned of counsel 
for the drawing up of his answer, who 
are to be permitted to have free access 
in and out to him. That this House 
doth hereby recommend to the Com 
mittee of Sequestrations, that the said 
Lord Archbishop shall have such 
means afforded him out of his estate 
as will enable him to pay his counsel, 
and defray his other charges. That 
when his Lordship shall set down 
particularly what papers and writings 
are necessary for his defence that 
should be restored unto him, their 
Lordships will take it into their consi 
deration. That upon his Lordship s 
nominating who shall be his solicitor, 
the Lords will return their answer. 
And for the witnesses, when a day 
shall be appointed for his Lordship s 
trial, this House will give such direc 
tions therein as shall be just." 

" Die Sabbati, 28 October, 1643. 
Ordered by the Lords in Parliament, 
That Master Hales is hereby ap 
pointed to be of counsel with the Lord 
Archbishop of Canterbury, with his 
other counsel already appointed for 
the drawing of his answer to the 
charge of the House of Commons 
against him. And that Master W. 
Dell, Richard Cobb, and Master 
George Smith, his Lordship s ser 
vants, shall have liberty to attend the 
said Archbishop s several affairs, and 
be permitted to come in and out unto 
him, as there shall be occasion." 

" Die Martis, 16 Jan. 1643. 
Upon the reading the petition of 

William, Archbishop of Canterbury, 
it is this day ordered by the Lords 
in Parliament, That Mr. Richard 
Gerrard, of Gray s Inn, be added to 
the former counsel assigned to the 
said Archbishop, to be likewise of his 
counsel. It is also ordered by the 
Lords in Parliament, That William, 
Archbishop of Canterbury, shall put 
in his answer in writing into this 
House, to the first and further Arti 
cles of Impeachment brought up from 
the House of Commons against him, 
by Monday morning next perempto 
rily, and that the same counsel for 
merly assigned him shall be of counsel 
with him."] 

d [John Hearne. From a letter in 
Peck s Desiderata Curiosa, p. 556, 
written by one of his grandchildren, 
it appears that he received the Holy 
Communion with the Archbishop just 
before his death ; and that the Arch 
bishop wished him to attend him on 
the scaffold. He desired to be excused 
this service, and his son attended in 
his stead. The same letter contains 
an account of a proposal to coin a 
medal from the gold pieces which the 
Archbishop gave the younger Hearne 
on this occasion.] 

e [Chaloner Chute, son of Arthur 
Chute, of Wrenham, in Suffolk. His 
son, Chaloner Chute, was Speaker of 
the House of Commons in Rich. Crom 
well s Parliament. (Wood,F.O.i.454.)] 

f [Afterwards the celebrated Sir 
Matthew Hale.] 

9 [Richard Gerrard.] 

h [M. P. for Westminster, afterwards 
Scrgcant-at-law, Chief Justice of the 

D 2 


to allow me means, and there was a known course in law, 
which was 1 , that I might go on in forma pauperis ; and so 
I was 2 left without any allowance out of my estate, to fee my 
counsel, or supply other wants. 

This succeeding so ill with me, I petitioned the Lords 

Octob. 28, again on Saturday, Octob. 28, and then Mr. Dell, my secre 
tary, was assigned me for my solicitor, and I was allowed two 
servants more to go about my business 1 ; and the House of 
Commons by their order agreed to the Lords, that I should 
have copies of any of the papers taken from me; but it 
should be at my own charge. Wonderful favour this, and as 
much justice! My estate all taken from me, and my goods 
sold, before ever I came to hearing ; and then I may take 
copies of my papers at my own charge ! 

Octob. 31. On Tuesday, Octob. 31, I humbly petitioned 1 the Lords 
for direction of my counsel how to carry themselves towards 
me and my defence; and that they would honourably be 

[ was, interlined.] 

[ was interlined.] 

Upper Bench, and one of Cromwell s 


See the order of the Lords, apud 
Kushw. p. 821 ; Pryn, p. 42. [See 
above, note c .] 

k The petition may be found, apud 
Kushw. p. 821; Pryn, p. 42. 
[" To the Right Honourable the Lords 
assembled in Parliament, 

"The humble petition of Wil 
liam, Archbishop of Canterbury, 

" Most humbly sheweth, 
" That your petitioner having pre 
sented against him, by the honour 
able Hou.-e of Commons, to your 
Lordships, an impeachment, intituled, 
Further Articles of Impeachment by 
the Commons assembled in Parlia 
ment, of High Treason, and divers 
High Crimes and Misdemeanours; to 
which by your honourable order of 
the twenty-fourth of October annexed, 
he is directed to put in his answer in 
writing, by Monday the sixth of No 
vember, and hath thereby counsel 
assigned him to draw up the same ; 

" That your petitioner s counsel, 
upon reading of the Articles, finding 
that as well in the frame as the conclu 
sion thereof, the matters of crime and 
misdemeanours are so interwoven with 
the matters thereby charged as treason, 
as they cannot take upon themselves 

to distinguish them ; and conceiving 
it not to have been your Lordships 
intention by their assignments, that 
they should advise an answer to any 
part of the impeachment charged 
against your petitioner as treason, do 
forbear to advise your petitioner s 
answer to the said Articles, without 
some declaration first had, which of 
the said Articles are intended to be a 
charge of high treason, and which of 
them of crimes and misdemeanours, 
without which your petitioner is like 
to be deprived of the assistance of 
counsel granted by your Lordships 

" Your petitioner humbly beseech- 
eth your Lordships, in this so heavy 
a charge on him, from so great and 
honourable a body, in such a strait of 
time, That it may be declared which 
of the said Articles are intended to be 
charges of crimes and misdemeanours 
only, in which your petitioner may 
have the assistance of his counsel 
assigned him to advise him in his 
answer thereunto ; and that your 
Lordships will be further honourably 
pleased to enlarge your petitioner in 
the time allotted for his answer. 

"And your petitioner shall pray, 
&c. "W. CANT."] 


pleased, in regard the Articles charged me with treason 
and misdemeanour, and were intermixed one with another, 
to distinguish which were for treason, and which for misde 
meanour : as also for longer time to put in my answer. The 
Lords upon this gave an order that I should have time till 
212 Novemb. 13, but would declare no opinion touching the dis- 
tinguishment of the Articles, but left me to my counsel to 
advise as they pleased l . My counsel told me plainly, I were as 
good have no counsel, if the Articles were not distinguished; 
for they were so woven one with another, and so knit up 
together in the conclusion, that they might refer all to 
treason, and so they be 1 suffered to give me no counsel at all 
in matter of fact. Hereupon they drew me another petition 
to the same effect, which I caused to be delivered Novemb. 6 ; Novemb. 6. 
but it received the same answer. Then Novemb. 7, being Novemb.7. 
Wednesday [Tuesday], I petitioned the House of Commons 
to the same purpose ; and Novemb. 8, this my petition was Novemb.8. 
read in the House of Commons, and, after a short debate, 
the resolution was, that they, being my accusers, would not 
meddle with anything, but left all to the order of the Lords, 
before whom the business was, and my counsel s own judgment 
thereupon. This seemed very hard, not only to myself and 
my counsel, but to all indifferent men that heard it. In 
the meantime I could resort no whither but to patience and 
God s mercy. 

Novemb. 13, I appeared in the Parliament-house according Novemb. 
to the order 111 , and was at the bar. That which I spake to 13< 
the Lds. was this, " That I had no skill to judge of the 
i [ be interlined.] 

1 See the order of the Lords, ibid. 822. 

[Rushworth,] p. 822 ; [Prynne, p.] 42. [" Die Veneris, 10 Novemb. 1643. 

["Die Martis, 31 Octobris. Or- Ordered, That the Lieutenant of the 
dered by the Lords in Parliament, Tower, or his deputies, shall bring in 
That the Lord Archbishop of Canter- safety the Lord Archbishop of Canter 
bury shall have time to put in his bury before their Lordships, on ^Ion- 
answer to the impeachment of the day, the thirteenth of this instant 
House of Commons until Monday the November, by ten of the clock in the 
thirteenth of November next. And morning, to put in his answer into 
that this House doth forbear to de- the House to the impeachment of the 
clare any opinion concerning the House of Commons remaining now 
several Articles of the said impeach- before the Lords in Parliament, and 
ment, but leaves it to his counsel to this to be a sufficient warrant in that 
do and advise as his counsel shall behalf, 
think most fitting."] " To the Gentleman Usher, &c."] 

m See the order, apud Rushw. p. 


straits into which I might fall by my plea, which I had 
resolved on, being left without all assistance of my counsel, 
in regard of the nature and form of the impeachment that 
was against me. That yet my innocency prompted me to 
a ready obedience of their Lps . order, casting myself wholly 
upon God s mercy, their Lps . justice, and my own inno 
cency." Then I humbly desired that their Lps . order first, 
and the impeachment after, might be read l . This done, 
I put in my answer in writing, as I was ordered to do, and 
humbly prayed it might be entered. My answer was, " All 
advantages of law against this impeachment saved and re 
served to this defendant, he pleads Not guilty to all and 
every part of the impeachment, in manner and form as tis 
charged in the Articles ;" and to this answer I put my hand. 

My answer being thus put in, I humbly besought their 
Lps. to take into their honourable consideration my great 
years, being threescore and ten complete, and my memory 
and other faculties by age and affliction much decayed : my 
long imprisonment, wanting very little of three whole years, 
and this last year little better than close imprisonment : my 
want of skill and knowledge in the laws to defend myself: 
the generality and incertainty of almost all the Articles, so 
that I cannot see any particulars against which I may provide 

In the next place, I did thankfully acknowledge their Lps . 
honourable favour in assigning me such counsel as I desired ; 
but I told their Lps. withal, that as my counsel were most 
ready to obey their Lps. in all the commands laid upon them, 
so there were certain doubts arisen in them how far they 
might advise me without offence; considering the charges 
against me were so interwoven, and left without all distin- 
guishment what is intended as a charge of treason, and what 213 
of crime and misdemeanour. That, to remove these doubts, 

1 [ might be read. in margin.] 

D Rushworth, p. 822 ; Pryn, peachment to this defendant saved 

p. 43. This answer is otherwise and reserved, this defendant humbly 

worded m Pryn s Compl. Hist. p. 43, saith that he is Not guilty of all or 

who took it (I suppose) from the Par- any the matters by the said impeach- 

liament Records. W. S. A. C. It is ment charged, in such manner and 

thus worded, " All advantages of ex- form as the same are by the said 

ception to the said Articles of Im- Articles of Impeachment charged." 


I had humbly besought their Lps. twice for distinguishment, 
by several petitions; that their Lps. not thinking it fit to 
distinguish,, I have, without advice of counsel, put in my plea, 
as their Lps. see. But do most humbly pray, that- their 
Lps. will take me so far into consideration, as that I may not 
lose the benefit of my counsel for law in (98) all, or any; and 
for law and fact, in whatsoever is not charged as treason, 
when it shall be distinguished : as still my prayers were, that 
by their Lps . wisdom and honourable direction, some way 
might be found to distinguish them : and that having (not 
without much difficulty) prevailed with my counsel to attend, 
their Lps. would be pleased to hear them speak in this 
perplexed business. 

While I was speaking this, the Lds. were very attentive, 
and two of them took pen and paper at the table, and took 
notes ; and it was unanimously granted that my counsel 
should be heard; and so they were. And the order then 
made upon their hearing was, that they should advise me, 
and be heard themselves in all things concerning matter of 
law, and in all things, whether of law or fact, that was? not 
charged as treason ; and that they would think upon the 
distinguishment in time convenient. This was all I could 
get, and my counsel seemed somewhat better content, that 
they had gotten so much. Not long after this, I heard from 
good hands, that some of the Lords confessed I had much 
deceived their expectation ; for they found me in a calm, but 
thought I would have been stormy. And this being so, 
I believe the two lords so careful at their pen and ink made 
ready to observe any disadvantages to me, which they 

See the order, apud Kushw. p. " Ordered, That the Committee for 

822 ; Pryn, p>43. the trial of the Archbishop of Cantcr- 

["Die Lunac, 13 Novemb. 1643. bury do meet this afternoon, at two of 

Ordered by the Lords in Parliament, the clock, in the Star Chamber, to 

That the Lord Archbishop of Canter- prepare the evidence against the 

bury s counsel shall provide them- Archbishop of Canterbury, and to 

selves to advise him in point of law, summon such witnesses as are needful, 

in all the Articles of the whole charge; arid prepare the business fit for trial, 

and for the matter of fact, when the and to acquaint the House when they 

cause comes to be prosecuted by the are ready ; and this they are to do 

House of Commons, as there shall be with all convenient speed they can, 

need, their Lordships will give further and to have power to send for parties, 

directions in due time." witnesses, papers, records, &c. And 

On the llth of December the the care thereof is particularly com- 

House oi Commons made this ensuing mitted unto Sergeant Wilde."] 

order: P were 


thought choler arid indignation might thrust forth. But 
I praise God the giver, I am better acquainted with patience 
fchan they think I am 1 . 

So this my main business stayed awhile. In the meantime, 

Deccmb. 8, that I might not rust, I was warned, Decemb. 8, to appear in 
Parliament the 18th of that month, as a collateral defendant 
in a case of Smart against Dr. Cosin, formerly heard in the 
High Commission <i. This cause had been called upon 2 both 
in this and former Parliaments; but I never heard that I 
was made a defendant till now; nor do I know anything of 
the cause, but that in the High Commission I gave my vote 
according to my conscience, and law too, for aught I know, 
and must refer myself to the acts of that 3 court. On Wed- 

Decemb. nesday, Decemb. 13, I petitioned for counsel in this cause, 

Decemb. and had the same assigned me; and on the 18th day I 
appeared according to my summons, but I was not called in, 
and the business put off to that day three weeks. 

Decemb. On Thursday, Decemb. 28, which was Innocents Day, 
one Mr. Wells, a New-England minister, came to me, and in 
a boisterous manner demanded to know whether I had 
repented or not. I knew him not, till he told me he was 
suspended by me when I was Bishop of London, and he then 
a minister in Essex. I told him, if he were suspended, it 214 
was doubtless according to law. Then upon a little further 
speech, I recalled the man to my remembrance, and what 
care I took in conference with him at London-House, to recall 
him from some of his turbulent ways, but all in vain ; and now 
he inferred out of the good words I then gave him, that I 
suspended him against my conscience. In conclusion he told 
me, I went about to bring Popery into the kingdom, and he 
hoped I should have my reward for it. When I ^aw him at 

1 [ Not long ... I am. inserted afterwards, the greater part on oppo 
site page.] 

2 [ had been called upon originally written hath been formerly called 
upon ] 3 [ that interlined.] 

q [Peter Smart, one of the Preben- at London. On the change of affairs, 

daries of Durham, had, in 1628, Smart preferred a Bill of Complaint 

preached a seditious sermon in that against Cosin and the other parties, 

cathedral ; for which, at the instiga- The Articles against Cosin are to be 

tion of Cosin and others, he was ques- found in Nalson s Collection, vol. i. 

tioned, first at Durham, and after- pp. 789, 790; and Cosin s Reply in 

wards in the High Commission Court Hcylin s Examen Historicum, p. 284.] 



this height, I told him, he and his fellows, what by their 
ignorance, and what by their railing, and other boisterous 
carriage, would soon actually make more Papists by far than 
ever I intended ; and that I was a better Protestant than he, 
or any of his followers. So I left him in his heat. This 
man was brought to my chamber by Mr. Isaac Pennington, 
son to the lieutenant. 

By this time something was made ready again in my great 
business ; and Wednesday at night, Janua. 3, I received an Janua. 3, 
order for my appearance, to answer 1 to the impeachment 164 ^ 
against me ; on the Monday following, Janua. 8 r . This summons 
seemed sudden, after so great an intermission ; yet I could 
not petition for more time till Saturday, Janua. 6; because, Janua. 6. 
as the messenger told me, the House sat not again till then. 
Then I petitioned for more time, in regard my counsel were 
not in town 2 ; and I had time given till Tuesday, Janua. 16, 
and that day set peremptorily 8 . Notwithstanding the short- 

1 [Originally written to appear, and to answer ] 

2 [ in town ; orig. at home ; ] 

r See the order, apud Eushw. p. 823 ; 
Pryn, p. 43. 

["Die Mercurii, 3 Jan. 1643. It is 
this day ordered by the Lords in Par 
liament, That this House will proceed 
against William Laud, Archbishop of 
Canterbury, upon the impeachment 
brought up from the House of Com 
mons for high cririies and misde 
meanours, on Thursday morning next, 
at ten of the clock, being the eighth 
of this instant January, 1643. At which 
time the said Archbishop is to prepare 
himself for his defence. 

" To the Gentleman Usher attending 
this Houe, or his deputy, to be de 
livered to the Lieutenant of the Tower, 
or his deputy, for the Archbishop."] 

s The petition may be found apud 
Rushw. p. 823, and the order of the 
Lords, p. 824. Both apud Pryn, p. 44. 
["To the Right Honourable the Lords 

assembled in the High Court of 


" The humble petition of William 

Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, 

prisoner in the Tower, 
" Humbly sheweth, 

"That your petitioner, having re 
ceived your Lordships command, by 
your honourable order of the third of 
this instant January annexed, to at 
tend and answer the impeachments 

against your petitioner from the 
honourable House of Commons, on 
Monday the eighth of this instant 
January, which is but five days dis 
tance, and at a time when two of his 
three counsel assigned are out of town, 
and your petitioner s witnesses, re 
siding in several remote places, cannot 
be summoned in so short a time, nor 
willing haply to come upon their 
summons, without warrant from your 
Lordships; Your petitioner s most 
humble suit to your Lordships is, That 
you will honourably vouchsafe him 
some more convenient time, to send 
for his counsel and witnesses to testify 
in the matters of fact charged against 
him ; and withal to grant the petitioner 
your honourable order, to command 
the witnesses summoned to attend at 
the time by your Lordships to be ap 
pointed ; which his humble request 
your petitioner had sooner presented 
to your Lordships, but that no sitting 
hath been (as your petitioner is in 
formed) until this day, sithence your 
honourable order in this behalf made 
known to him. 

" And your petitioner shall pray, &c. 
" W. Cant." 

Upon reading whereof, the Lords 
made this order : 

" Sabbati, 6 Jan. 1643. Whereas the 


ness of this time, my counsel being out of town, as not 
Janua. 7. expecting it, I was on Sunday, Janua. 7, ordered again to 
appear in Mr. Smart s suit, the next day. The warrant bare 
date a fortnight before ; yet partly to sanctify the Sabbath*, 
and partly to show his great civility to me in giving me 
warning, I was not served with it till Sunday night at seven 
Janua. 8. of the clock. The next morning, I went to Westminster as 
I was commanded ; but I was sent back, and not so much as 
called upon. So, beside the charge I was at, that day was 
lost and taken from me and my business, as short time as I 
had given me. 

Janua. 16. Then Tuesday came on, Januar. 16. And whereas I was 
ordered to appear at the Lords House at nine in the morning, 
I was by another order put off to one of the clock in the 
afternoon u . Then I appeared x . The Committee that were 
to press the evidence against me began to proceed upon the 
former general* Articles, as well as upon the latter y. But to 

House formerly appointed Monday, 
being the eighth of this instant Janu 
ary, 1643, to proceed against William 
Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, upon 
the impeachment brought up against 
him from the House of Commons for 
high treasons, and high crimes and 
misdemeanours ; upon reading the pe 
tition of the said Archbishop, it is this 
day ordered by the Lords in Parlia 
ment, to the end the counsel and wit 
nesses of the said Archbishop may have 
competent time to attend the hearing 
of the cause, that this House will 
icspite the proceedings against the 
said Archbishop upon the said im 
peachments until Tuesday, the 16th of 
this instant January, 1643, at ten of 
the clock in the morning ; at which 
time the said Archbishop is peremp 
torily appointed to provide his wit 
nesses, and prepare his defence unto 
the said impeachments. 

" To the Gentleman Usher, &c."] 

* For so those Puritans styled and 
accounted the Sunday. H. W. 

u Vide the order, apud Rushw. p. 
824; Pryn, p. 45. 

["Die Lunge, 15 Jan. 1643. It is 
this day ordered by the Lords in Par 
liament, That the Lieutenant of the 
Tower of London, or his deputy, shall 
bring in safety the Archbishop of Can 
terbury before their Lordships, on 
Tuesday, the 16th of this instant Janu 
ary, by one of the clock in the after 

noon. At which time this House will 
proceed against the said Archbishop, 
upon the impeachments brought up 
from the House of Commons for high 
treason, and high crimes and mis 
demeanours : and this to be a sufficient 
warrant in that behalf. 

" To the Gentleman Usher, &c."] 

x [" About three o clock that after 
noon the Lords sent down this message 
to the House of Commons : 

" A message from the Lords by Sir 
Robert Rich and Mr. Page, to acquaint 
the House that they are ready to 
hear the charge upon the impeach 
ment against the Bishop of Canter 

" Upon this message, the Committee 
of the House of Commons appointed 
to manage the evidence against him, 
went up to the Lords House : and 
then the Archbishop, being brought to 
the bar, after he had there kneeled a 
little space, was commanded to stand." 

Prynne, in recording the further 
proceedings of this day, mentions that 
both sets of Articles were read, but 
only the Archbishop s reply to the 
latter set, ascribing the Archbishop s 
silence respecting the first set of Arti 
cles to his own sense of guilt, and not 
to the circumstance mentioned in the 
text. Maynard also urged the same 
argument at the time.] 

y Mr. Maynard was then chief mana 
ger for the Commons. See his speech 



the first Articles I had never been called to answer, nor 
(99) ever joined issue. Upon this, there was much looking 
one upon another, as if they meant to ask where the failure 
was : but by this means there could not then be any pro 
ceeding. So I was there peremptorily ordered to put in my 
answer on Monday, Janua. 22, both to the original and to 
the additional Articles, and in writing 2 . 

At this day and time I appeared, as I was ordered to do ; Jan. 22, 

1 r A 4 

but could not obtain of the Lords, either to take my former 
answer off from the file, if I must put in another; nor to 
distinguish the Articles, which were treason and which mis 
demeanour ; nor leave for my counsel to speak to the gene- 
215 rality and uncertainty of the original Articles, which, they 
professed were such, as no man living could prepare answer 
for a . But I must put in my answer presently, or be taken 

made then to the. Lords, apud Eushw. 
p. 824, and Pryn, p. 45. 

z See the order, apud Rushw. p. 825 ; 
Pryn, pp. 46, 47. 

[" It is this day ordered by the 
Lords in Parliament, That William, 
Archbishop of Canterbury, shall put in 
his answer in writing into this House 
to the first and further Articles of Im 
peachment brought up from the House 
of Commons against him, by Monday 
morning next peremptorily, and that 
the same counsel formerly assigned 
shall be of counsel with him." 

On the next Saturday was issued 
the following order : 

Die Sabbati, 20 Jan. 1643. It is 
this day ordered by the Lords in Par 
liament, That the Lieutenant of the 
Tower of London, or his deputy, shall 
bring in safety William, Archbishop 
of Cant., before their Lordships, on 
Monday, the 22d of this instant Janu 
ary, by ten of the clock in the morning, 
to put in his answer to the Articles of 
Impeachment brought up from the 
House of Commons against him, ac 
cording to the former order of this 
House, of the 16th of this instant 

" To the Gentleman Usher, &c."] 

a See the Archbishop s petition made 
herein, Jan. 19, apud Rushw. p. 825, 
Pryn, p. 46. 
[" To the Right Honourable the Lords 

assembled in Parliament, 
" The humble petition of William, 

Archbishop of Canterbury, prisoner 

in the Tower, 

" Sheweth, 

" That whereas your petitioner, hav 
ing formerly answered the particular 
Articles exhibited against him by the 
honourable House of Commons, and 
now by your Lordships order of the 
16th of this instant is commanded to 
put in his answer to the first and 
further Articles of Impeachment 
brought up against him, by Monday 
morning next, for doing whereof his 
former counsel is assigned him : 

" That your petitioner, having ad 
vised with his counsel concerning the 
first Articles, which were exhibited 
now almost three years sithence, find 
ing upon perusal and debate of the 
same that the said former Articles 
are such, that no answer can be 
made thereunto, nor your petitioner 
in any wise enabled to prepare for 
his defence to the same, as they now 
stand : 

" That forasmuch as the said Articles 
of Impeachment import no less than 
a charge of high treason, and foras 
much as your petitioner is by his 
counsel informed, that especially in 
cases of life, the defendant is allowed 
to offer to the Court, where the same 
depends, his exceptions by his counsel, 
before any plea pleaded : 

" Your petitioner most humbly be- 
seecheth your Lordships to appoint a 
day for the hearing of your petitioner s 
counsel concerning the same. 

" And vour petitioner shall pray, &c. 
W. Cant."] 


pro confesso^. So in these straits I put in my answer to both 
Articles ; which follows in h&c verba : 

" The humble answer of William, Archbishop of Canter 
bury, to the first and further Articles of Impeachment brought 
up by the Honourable House of Commons against him, and 
by order of the Right Honourable the Lords in Parliament, 
of the 16th of this instant, directed to be put in. 

" As to the 13th Article of the said first Articles, and the 
matters therein charged, and all matters or things in the 
same or any of the rest of the said Articles contained, which 
concern any act of hostility, whether between the King and 
his subjects, or between subject and subject, or which may 
be conceived to arise upon the coming of any English army 
against Scotland, or the coming of the Scottish army into 
England; or upon any action, attempt, assistance, counsel, 
or device, having relation thereunto, and falling out by the 
occasion of the late troubles, preceding the late conclusion of 
the treaty, and return of the Scottish army into Scotland : this 
defendant saith ; That it is enacted by an Act made during 
the sitting of this present Parliament, that the same, and 
whatsoever hath ensued thereupon, whether trenching upon 
the laws and liberties of the Church and kingdom, or upon 
his Majesty s honour and authority, in no time hereafter 
may be called in question, or resented as a wrong, national 

b [" Die Lunse, 22 die Januarii. the 19th of January. 

This day being appointed for the " Upon this, the House commanded 

Archbishop of Canterbury to put in him and his counsel to withdraw, 

his answer to the first and further " And the House took this desire of 

Articles of Impeachment brought up the Bishop s into consideration. And 

from the House of Commons against the House ordered, To adhere to the 

him, the House commanded the former orders, and the Speaker to let 

Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod to him know, that this House expects 

bring him in ; who brought him to his answer now presently, 

the Bar, where he kneeled as a delin- " The Bishop was called in ; the 

quent, until he was bid by the House Speaker told him of the order of this 

to stand up. House as aforesaid. 

" And then the Speaker demanded " Hereupon he humbly desired a 

of him his answer. The Archbishop little time to advise with his counsel 

answered : That the first Articles are now presently, which this House 

so full of generals, there being no granted."] 

certain time, place, nor fact expressed, c This answer was put in Jan. 22, 

that his counsel are not able to draw, being short, and in general pleading 

or advise him in an answer; therefore Not guilty, and making only a short 

he desired their Lordships would be particular plea to the 13th Article, 

pleased to hear his counsel to offer to The said answer may be found in 

this House some exception, before Rush. p. 826, and Pryn, p. 47. I have 

any plea be pleaded, according to the transcribed it from Pryn, and caused 

desire of his petition to this House, it to be here inserted. H. W. 


or personal ; and that no mention be made thereof in time 
coming, neither in judgment nor out of judgment ; but that 
it be held and reputed, as though never such things had been 
thought or wrought ; as by the said Act may more at large 
appear d : with this, That this defendant doth aver, that he is 
none of the persons excepted by the said Act, or the said 
offences charged upon this defendant any of the offences 
excepted by the said Act. 

" And as to all the rest of the said first and further Articles, 
this defendant, saving to himself all advantages of exception 
to the said Articles, humbly saith, He is not guilty of all or 
any the matters by the said Articles charged, in such manner 
and form as the same are by the said Articles charged 
against him e ." 

This day the Thames was so full of ice that I could not 
go by water. It was frost and snow, and a most bitter day. 
I went therefore with the Lieutenant in his coach, and twelve 
warders with halberts went all along the streets. I could not 
obtain either the sending of them before, or the suffering 
them to come behind, but with the coach they must come ; 
which was as good as to call the people about me. So from 
the Tower-gate to Westminster I was sufficiently railed on 

d [16 Car. I. cap. xvii. See also Cant., to the first and further Articles 

Kymer, Foed. IX. iii. 73.] of Impeachment brought up by this 

e [It is further added in the Lords House against him, which was read, 

Journals : and ordered to be referred to the 

"The Bishop, after this, desired, Committee appointed to manage the 

That his former answer maybe re- evidence against the Archbishop of 

turned unto him again, that so there Canterbury, and accordingly delivered 

may be but one answer to one and the to Sergeant Wilde." 

same charge. And further, he de- After this, the House of Commons 

sired, That his counsel, in conve- made the two following orders : 

nient time, might be heard in matter " Feb. 22, 1643. Ordered, That the 

of law. Committee appointed to manage the 

" The Bishop being withdrawn, the evidence at the trial of the Archbishop 

House gave no order herein, but of Canterbury do peremptorily meet 

ordered, That a copy of the Arch- this afternoon, at three of the clock, 

bishop s answer, made this day, should in the Court of Wards, upon the dis- 

be written, and attested under the tributionof the parts of the evidence." 

hand of the Clerk of the Parliament, "4 Martii, 1643. A message to be 

and sent down to the House of sent to the Lords, to desire them to 

Commons." appoint a day for the trial of the Arch- 

The answer was accordingly sent bishopof Canterbury. Master Sergeant 

down to the Lower House, as appears Wilde went up to the Lords to appoint 

by the following entry in the Com- a day for the trial of the Archbishop 

inons Journals : of Canterbury. Sergeant Wilde brings 

" Jan 22, 1 643. The Lords, by Sir answer, That the Lords have appointed 

llobert Uich and Mr. Page, sent down to-morrow sevennight for the trial of 

the answer of William, Archbishop of the Archbishop of Canterbury."] 


and reviled all the way. God of His mercy forgive the mis 
guided people ! My answer being put in, I was for that time 
dismissed ; and the tide serving me, I made a hard shift to 210 
return by water. 

And now, notwithstanding all this haste made to have my 
answer in, Mr. Pryn cannot make this broken business ready 
against me. Therefore, to fill up some time, I was 2 ordered 

Janua. 29. to be at the House again on 3 Monday, Janua. 29, about 
Mr. Smart s business. But being put to this trouble and 
charge, and showed to the people for a further scorn, I was 
sent back again, and had nothing said 4 to me. 

All February passed over, and Mr. Pryn not yet ready ; he 
had not yet sufficiently prepared his witnesses. But on 

Mar. 4. Monday, Mar. 4, an order passed to call me to the House, to 
answer my charge of high treason, on Tuesday, March 12, 

Mar. 9. following f . And on Saturday, March 9, I received a note 
from the Committee which were to press the evidence against 
me, what Articles they meant to begin with ; which had a 
show of some fair respect ; but the generality and uncer 
tainty of the Articles was such, as rendered it a bare show 
only ; no particular being charged concerning which I might 
provide for any witnesses or counter-proof g . 

ready interlined.] 

on Monday, Janua. 29, here originally inserted.] 

on interlined.] 4 [ said originally written sent ] 

f See the order, apud Rushw. p. 827 ; bury, desiring that Sir Henry Mildmay 

Pryn, p. 48. may be examined as a witness in his 

["Die Lunse, 4 Martii, 1643. Or- business, he being to come to trial on 
dered, That the Archbishop of Canter- Tuesday next, was this day read. And 
bury shall appear before their Lord- it is ordered, according to his petition, 
ships on Tuesday, the 12th of this That he shall be examined as a witness 
instant March, at nine of the clock in at the trial of the said Bishop according- 
thc morning. At which time this ly. It was likewise then ordered, That 
House will proceed against the Arch- divers members of the House of Com- 
bishop upon the first and further mons shall be examined as witnesses 
Articles of Impeachment brought up against him; and that the Lords be 
from the House of Commons against moved by Sergeant Wilde, that some 
him for high treason, and high crimes members and attendants of the Lords 
and misdemeanours, whereof the said House be examined at the Arch- 
Archbishop is hereby to take notice, bishop s trial. And that it be referred 
and provide himself accordingly."] to the Committee of Sequestrations to 

s [There was rea d in the House of consider of some convenient recom- 
Commons, on March 9, a petition pense for such clerks, solicitors, and 
from the Archbishop that Sir Henry others as have been, or shall be, em- 
Mildmay might be examined as a ployed in the transcribing of breviates, 
witness on his trial ; upon which the and other services done by the Corn- 
following order was made : mittee for the Bisbop of Canterbury 

" 9 Martii, 1643. The humble peti- his trial."] 
tion of William, Archbishop of Canter- 



AND now being ready to enter upon the hearing and the 
trial itself, I hold it necessary for me to acquaint the reader 
with some general things before that begin ; partly to the 
end 1 he may see the course of this trial, and the carriage 
which hath been in it 2 ; and partly to avoid the often and 
tedious repetition, which else must necessarily be of some of 
them ; and especially that they may not be mingled, either 
with the evidence, or my answers to it, to interrupt the 
current, or make anything more obscure. 

(100) 1. The Committee appointed by the House of Com 
mons to manage and press the evidence against me, were 
Sergeant Wilde a , Mr. Browne 13 , Mr. Maynard c , Mr. Nicolas d , 
Mr. Hill e ; but none spake at the bar but the first four: 
Mr. Hill was Consul-Bibulus f ; Mr. Pryn was trusted with 
the providing of all the evidence, and was relater, and 
prompter, and all, never weary of anything, so he might do 
me mischief. And I conceive in future times it will not be 
the greatest honour to these proceedings, that he, a man 
twice censured in the High Court of Star-Chamber, set in 
the pillory twice once 3 for libelling the Queen s Majesty, 
and other ladies of great honour, and again for libelling the 
Church, and the government and governors of it, the Bps. 
and that had his ears there cropped, should now be thought 
the only fit and indifferent man to be trusted with the 

1 [ partly to the end originally written partly because ] 

2 [ and the carriage . . . it ; in marg. ] 3 [ once in marg.] 

a [John Wilde, M.P. for Worcester- Seal, and died, Oct. 9, 1690, well 

shire.] spoken of, as a sound lawyer.] 

b [Samuel Browne, an M.P. He d [Robert Nicholas, M.P. for Devizes. 

was afterwards one of the Commis- Afterwards Sergeant-at-Law, and one 

sioners of the Great Seal, and one of the Judges of the Court of King s 

of the Judges of the Court of King s Bench.] 

Bench.] e [Robert Hill, M.P. for Bridport. 

c [John Maynard, M.P. for Totnes. Afterwards one of the Barons of the 

He lived through the reigns of Exchequer.] 

Charles II. and James II., and took an f [Referring to M. Calpurnius Bibu- 

active part in bringing over William lus, Caesar s inactive colleague in his 

III. In 1689, he was appointed one first consulship.] 
o the Commissioners of the Great 


witnesses and the evidence against me, an archbishop, and 
sitting at his censure 1 . 

2. Mr. Pryn took to him two young men, to help to turn 
his papers, and assist him ; Mr. Grice, and Mr. Beck. Mr. 
Grice was son to Mr. Tho. Grice, Fellow 2 of St. John Bap. 
College in my time, and after beneficed near Stanes . I 
know not what the matter was, but I could never get his 217 
love. But he is dead h , and so let him rest 3 . And now his 
son succeeds, and it seems he inherits his father s disposition 
towards me ; for I hear his tongue walks liberally over me 

in all places 4 . For Mr. Beck, he hath received some courtesy 
from me, and needed not in this kind to have expressed his 
thankfulness. But I leave them both to do the office which 
they have undertaken, and to grow up under the shadow of 
Mr. Pryn; God knows to what. 

3. It was told me by a man of good credit, that was present 
and heard it, that my name coming in question among some 
gentlemen, after divers had spoken their thoughts of me, and 
not all one way, a Parliament-man being there, was pleased 
to say, that I was now an old man, and it would be happy 
both for me and the Parliament, that God would be pleased 
to take me away : and yet I make no doubt, but that if age, 
or grief, or faintness of spirit had ended my days, many of 
them would have done as Tiberius did in the case of Asinius 
Gallus ; that is, Incus arent casus, qui reum abstulissent, ante- 
quam cor am convinceretur l : They would cry k out against 
this hard chance, that should take away so guilty a person 
from public trial, when they were even ready for it. After 
this, when a friend of mine bemoaned my case to another 

1 [ an archbishop . . . censure. inserted afterwards, part on opp. page.] 

2 [ Fellow originally written sometimes Fellow ] 

3 [ But he ... rest. in marg.] * [ in all places. on opp. page.] 

[Thomas Grice was elected to S. numb. 943, pp. 55 seq.)] 

John s College in 1605, from Merch. b [Grice had died prior to Aug. 9, 

Tailors School (see Wilson s Hist, of 1637, when his successor was appointed 

Merch, Tailors School, p. 1191) ; and-, (Newcourt, Eepert. vol. i. p. 689).] 

July 1, 1617, was admitted Rector of ! " Scilicet (plus quam) mcdio tri- 

hitlington, Middlesex (Newcourt, enniodefuittempussubeundijudicium 

Repert. vol. i. p. 689). Archbishop consular! seni." Tacit. Annal. lib. 6. 

Sancroft remarks on this passage : [cap. 23. This note is a continuation 

Of Mr. Thomas Grice, see the papers of the passage quoted in the text.] 

concerning the Mastership of S. John k have cried 
Baptist College. (See Lamb. MSS. 


Parliament-man (of whom I had deserved very well) and said, 
he knew I was a good man : the Parliament-man replied, 
Be he never so good, we must now make him ill for our 
own sakes. What the meaning of these speeches is, let 
understanding men judge. And even during my trial, some 
citizens of London were heard to say, that indeed I answered 
many things very well : but yet I must suffer somewhat for 
the honour of the House/ 

4. So all my hopes now, under God, lay wholly on the 
honour and justice of the Lords. Yet seeing how fierce many 
of the people were against me, and how they had clamoured 
in other cases, and that Mr. Pryn was set up at once to 
mischief and to scorn me, and foreseeing how full of reproaches 
my trial was like to be ; I had a strong temptation in me, 
rather to desert my defence, and put myself into the hands 
of God s mercy, than endure them. But when I considered 
what offence I should commit thereby l against the course of 
justice, that that might not proceed in the ordinary way ; 
what offence against my own innocency and my good name, 
which I was bound both in nature and conscience to maintain 
by all good means, which by deserting my cause could not 
be ; but especially, what offence against God, as if He were 
not able to protect me, or not willing, in case it stood with 
my eternal happiness 2 , and His blessed will of trial of me in 
the meantime ; I say when I considered this, I humbly 
besought God for strength and patience, and resolved to 
undergo all scorns, and whatsoever else might happen to me, 
rather than betray my innocency to the malice of any. 

5. And though my hopes under God were upon the Lords, 
yet when my trial came on, it did somewhat trouble me, to 
see so few Lords in that great House. For at the greatest 
presence that was any day of my hearing, there were not 

218 above fourteen, and usually not above eleven or twelve. Of 
these, one-third part at least, each day took, or had occasion 
to be gone, before the charge of the day was half given. I 
never had any one day the same Lords all present at my 
defence in the afternoon, that were at my charge in the 
morning : some leading Lords scarce present at my charge, 
four days of all my long trial, nor three at my defence : and 
1 [ thereby interlined.] 2 [ happiness on opposite page.] 

LAUD. VOT,. iv. 


which is most, no one Lord present at my whole trial, but the 
Right Honourable the Lord Gray of Wark 1 , the Speaker, 
without whose presence it could not be a House. (101) In 
this case I stood in regard of my honourable judges. 

6. When my hearing came on, usually my charge was in 
giving till almost two of the clock. Then I was commanded 
to withdraw ; and upon my humble petition fur time to 
answer, I had no more given me, than till four the same 
afternoon scarce time enough advisedly to peruse the evi 
dence : my counsel not suffered to come to me, till I had 
made my answer, nor any friend else, but my solicitor, Mr. 
Dell, to help turn my papers, and my warder of the Tower, 
to sit by to look to this. And this was not the least cause *, 
why I was at first accused of no less than treason ; Ne quis 
necessariorum juvaret periclitantem, majestatis crimina subde- 
bantur m , as it fell out in Silanus his case, who had more guilt 
about him (yet not of treason 2 ) than (God be thanked) I 
have ; but was prosecuted with like malice, as appears in that 
story 3 . At four o* clock *, or after, the House sat again ; 
and I made my answer : and if I produced any witness, he 
was not suffered to be sworn ; so it was but like a testimony 
at large, which the Lords might the more freely believe, or 
not believe, as they pleased. After my answer, one, or more 
of the Committee, replied upon me. By that time all was 
done, it was usually half an hour past seven. Then in the 5 
heat of the year (when it overtook me G ) I was 7 presently to 
go by water to the Tower, full of weariness, and with a shirt 
as wet to my back with sweat, as the water could have made 
it, had I fallen in : yet I humbly thank God for it, He so 
preserved my health, as that though I were 8 weary and faint 
the day after, yet I never had so much as half an hour s 
headache, or other infirmity, all the time of this comfortless 
and tedious trial. 

cause, originally written reason/] 

yet . . . treason interlined.] 

And this . . . story. on opposite page.] 

o clock, interlined.] 5 [ the interlined.] 

me interlined.] 

I was originally written I was divers nights ] 

" I were originally written I was nev. ] 

1 [Sir William Grey, created Baron m Tacit. Annal. lib. iii. [cnp. 67.] 
Grey of Warke, Feb. 11, 1624.] 


7. Now for the method, which I shall hold in this History 
of my trial, it shall be this. I will set down the evidence 
given on each day, by itself, and my answer to it. But 
whereas all the evidence was given together, and so my whole 
answer after; to avoid all looking back, and trouble of turn 
ing leaves to compare the answer with the evidence, I will set 
down each 1 particular evidence, and my answer to it, and so 
all along, that the indifferent reader may without further 
trouble see the force of the one, and the satisfaction given in 
the other, and how far every particular is from treason 2 . 
And if 1 add any thing 3 to my answers in any place, either 
it is because in the shortness of time then given me to make 
my * answer, it came not to my present 5 thoughts ; or if it 
did, yet I forbare to speak it with that sharpness ; holding it 
neither fit nor safe in my condition, to provoke either my 
accusers or my judges. And whatsoever is so added by me, 
in either of these respects, the reader shall find it thus marked 
in the margent, as here it stands in this n . 

219 8. Nor did I wrong Mr. Pryn, where I say, f that for all 
the haste to put in my answer, Jaiiua. 22, he could not make 
this broken business so soon ready against me : for tis well 
known, he kept a kind of school of instruction for such of the 
witnesses as he durst trust, that they might be sure to speak 
home to the purpose he would have them. And this an 
utter barrister, a man of good credit, knows ; who in the 
hearing of men 6 beyond exception, said, The Archbishop is 
a stranger to me, but Mr. Pryn s tampering about the wit 
nesses is 7 so palpable and foul, that I cannot but pity him 
and cry shame of it. When I heard this, I sent to this 

1 [ each originally written the ] - [- and . . . treason. in marg.] 

3 [ thing interlined.] 4 [ make my interlined.] 

5 [ present interlined.] 

6 [ hearing of men originally written hearing of others, men ] 

7 [ is originally written was ] 

"Note, that where entire set speeches recapitulation of his answer, or iii- 

were made by the Archbishop, although serted in writing the History. PI.W. 

spoken by him at the Bar, the same [The Archbishop had here inserted in- 

marks are put to it. But wheresoever verted commas (") in the margin, 

those marks are found in the History, These will be retained at the beginning 

from the second to the last day of the and end of the set speeches, and of 

trial inclusive, the words to which the additions made by the Archbishop, 

they are affixed were not spoken at the and not all through them as origU 

Bar at that time, but either added nally printed.] 
afterwards by the Archbi hop at the 


gentleman, to know if lie tendered my case so far, as to 
witness it before the Lords. The answer I received was, 
that the thing was true, and that very indignation of it made 
him speak : but heartily prayed me, I would not produce him 
as a witness ; for if I did, the times were such, he should be 
utterly undone : and tis not hard to guess by whom. Upon 
this I consulted some friends ; and upon regard of his safety 
on the one side, and my own doubt, lest if forced to his 
undoing, he might through fear, blanch and mince the truth, 
to my own prejudice, who produced him, I forbare the 
business, and left Mr. Pryn to the bar of Christ, whose 
mercy give him repentance, and amend him. But upon my 
Christianity this story is truth. 

[This expression noted by Archbishop Bancroft, as if not approved of.] 


220 CAP - XXII. 


AND now I come to Tuesday, March 12., the day appointed Mar. 12, 
for my trial to begin; and begin it did. When I was come, Dic S i 
and settled at the bar, Sergeant Wilde made a solemn speech 
for introduction. I had a character given me before of this 
gentleman, which I will forbear to express ; but in this speech 
of his, and his future proceedings with me, I found it exactly 
true. His speech my decayed memory cannot give you at 
large ; but a skeleton of it I here present, according to such 
limnes 2 , as my brief notes then taken can now call to my 
memory a . 

He began, and told the Lords, that the children, which I 
had travailed with, were now come to the birth ; and that my 
actions were so foul, and my (102) treason so great, as that 
the like could not be read in any history ; nay so great, as 
that nullus poeta fingere, no poet could ever fain the like : 
and that if all treason were lost, and not to be found in any 
author what it is, it might be recovered and found out in me 
and my actions ; with divers pieces of Latin sentences to this 
effect. And though these high and loud expressions troubled 
me much at the present : yet I could not but think, that in 3 
this cento of his he was much like one of them which cry up 
and down the city, Have you any old ends of gold and 

1 [These headings are in the margin in the original MS.] 

2 [ limnes originally written lymes of it ] 3 [ that in in margin.] 

a See a relation of what then passed, which request, on the showing of Mr. 
before Wild began his speech, apud Maynard, who argued against it, was 
Rushw. p. 827, and Wild s speech en- refused. The Archbishop then re 
tire, ibid. p. 828, &c. and in Pryn s quested that the articles which con- 
Compl. Hist. p. 51, &c. [The sub- tained matters of treason might be 
stance of what passed was to this effect : severed from the rest : which Maynard 
The several Articles of Impeachment opposed, because they were met to 
were read, and the Archbishop s an- examine matters of fact and not of 
swer, plea, and demurrer; and after- law, and because all the Articles toge- 
Avards the Archbishop requested that ther, not each Article by itself, made 
he might answer the charge as a whole, up the treason with which the Arch- 
and not each day s evidence separately ; bishop was charged.] 


DiePrimo. After this he proceeded to give reasons why I was not 
sooner proceeded against, having noAv lain by it above three 
years. The first reason he gave, was the distractions of the 
time. And they indeed were now grown great ; but the dis 
tractions which were now, can be no argument why I was 
not proceeded against at the beginning of the Parliament l , 
when things were in some better quiet. His second reason 
was the death of some persons V But this could be no 
reason at all : for if the 2 persons he speaks of were witnesses 
against me, more might die 3 , but the dead could not be made 
alive again by this delay; unless Mr. Sergeant had some 
hope, the resurrection might have been by this time, that so 
he might have produced them. And if the persons \vere 
Members of the House of Commons, as all men know Mr. 
Pym was in the chair for preparation of my trial ; then this 
is known too, that Mr. Pym came up to the Committee of 
Lords full of great hopes, to prove God knows what against 
me. The persons to be examined 4 , w r erc William, Ld. Bp. of 
London c , and Matthew, Ld. Bp. of Ely d , my very w r orthy 
friends, and men like to know as much of me as any men. 
A lord then present told me, there were some eighteen or 
nineteen Interrogatories 5 , upon which these bishops were to 
be examined against me, concerning my intercourse with 
Rome; but all were built upon the first, which was their 
knowledge of the man who, it seems, was thought to be my 221 
chief agent in that secret. But both the bishops denying 
upon their oaths, that they, or either of them ever knew any 
such man, all the rest of the interrogatories, what relations 
he had to me, and the like, must needs fall to nothing, as 
they did : and the lord told me further, he never saw Mr. 
Pym and the rest so c abashed at anything in his life. After 
this Mr. Pym (as tis well known) gave over that chair, 

1 [ of the Parliament in margin.] 2 [ the originally written those ] 

3 [ die/ originally written die by this putting off, ] 

4 [ examined/ originally written examined against me/] 

5 [ Interrogatories/ originally written Articles/] 6 [ so orig. more ] 

b " The death and dispersion of our Archbishop of Canterbury.] 

witnesses, the loss of some of our d [Matthew Wren ; after undergoing 

members, who have been employed the severest persecutions, he was re- 

and taken pains in this business." So stored in 1660 to his bishopric, and 

Wild s Speech apud Pryn, p. 51. died in 1667.] 

[William Juxon, at the restoration 


despairing to do that against me which was desired. His Die Primo. 
third reason was a good large one, and that was other im 
pediments e . } And that s true, some impediments there were, 
no doubt, or else I had come sooner to hearing. And, as I 
conceive, a chief impediment was, that there was not a man 
whose malice would make him diligent enough to search into 
such a forsaken business, till Mr. Pryn offered himself to that 
service : for I think I may be confident, that l that honourable 
arid great House would not seek any man out of their own 
body for any such employment 2 , had not suit, some way or 
other, been made for it. 

After these reasons given for the delay of my trial, he fell 
upon me again as foul as at first ; as, that I was the author 
of all the extravagants in the Government, and of all the 
concussions in the State ; that the quality of my person 
aggravated my crime ; that my abilities and gifts were great, 
but that 1 perverted them all; and that I was guilty of 
treason in the highest altitude V These were the liveries 
which he liberally gave me, but I had no mind to wear them. 
And yet I might not desire him to wear this cloth himself, 
considering where I then stood, and in what condition. 

This treason in the altitude/ he said, was in my endeavour 
to alter the religion established by law, and to subvert the 
laws themselves ; and that to effect these I left no way unat- 
temptcd. For religion, he told the Lords, that I laboured a 
reconciliation with Rome ; that I maintained Popish and 
Arminian opinions ; that I suffered traiisubstantiation s t 
justification by merits, purgatory, and what not, to be openly 
preached all over the kingdom ; that I induced superstitious 
ceremonies, as consecrations of churches and chalices, and 
pictures of Christ in glass windows h ; that I gave liberty to 
the profanation of the Lord s-day; that I held intelligence 

1 [ confident, that in margin.] 

2 [ for any such employment/ on opposite page.] 

e " The multitude of diversions, tioned in Wild s Speech, apud Pryn, 

which we have had and have daily." p. 52. 
So Wild s Speech, ibid. h The particular ceremonies charged 

f " Treason in the highest pitch and with Popery and superstition, are not 

altitude." So Wild s Speech, p. 52. named in Wild s Speech, ibid. 

s Traiisubstantiation is not men- 


Die Primo. with cardinals and priests, and endeavoured to ascend to 
papal dignity, offers being made me to be a cardinal. 

And for the laws, he was altogether as wild in his asser 
tions, as he was before for religion. And if he : have no 
more true sense of religion, than he 2 hath knowledge in the 
la\v, (though it be his profession,) I think he may offer both 
long enough to sale 3 1 , before he find a chapman for either. 
(103) And here he told the Lords, that I held the same 
method for this, which I did for religion. And surely that 
was to uphold both, had the kingdom been so happy as to 
believe me. But he affirmed (with great confidence) >, that 
I caused sermons to be preached in Court to set the King s 
prerogative above the law, and books to be printed to the 
same effect ; that my actions were according to these. Then 
he fell upon the Canons, and discharged them upon me. 
Then, that I might be guilty enough, (if his bare word could 222 
make me so,) he charged upon me the benevolence, the loan, 
the ship-money, the illegal pulling down of buildings, inclo- 
sures ; saying, that as Antichrist sets himself above all that 
is called God, so I laboured to set the King above all that is 
called law. And after a tedious stir, he concluded his speech 
with this, That I was like Naaman the Syrian, a great 
person (he confessed), but a leper. So ended this noble 
Celeustes 4 *. 

I was much troubled to see myself in such an honourable 
assembly made so vile. Yet, seeing all men s eyes upon me, 
I recollected myself, and humbly desired of the Lords two 
things : " One, that they would expect proof, before they 5 
give up their belief to these loud but loose assertions ; espe 
cially, since it is an easy thing for men, so resolved, to 
conviciate, instead of accusing ; when as the rule given by 
Optatus holds firm, Quum intenditur crimen^, when a crime 
is objected, (especially so high a crime as this charged on 

if he originally he ] 2 [ he interlined.] 

to sale, in marg.] 

this noble Celeustes. originally this Celeustes. ] 
they interlined.] 

[These two expressions are noted Speech, apud Pryn; but only some 

by Archbishop Bancroft.] general invectives and accusations to 

J None of the particulars, which this purpose. H. \V. 

follow to the end, (save the conclusive k Optat. lib. vi. cont. Parmeni- 

sentence,) are to be found in Wild s anum, [p 114. Paris. 1679.] 


me,) tis necessary that the proof be manifest, which yet DiePrimo. 
against me is none at all. The other, that their Lps. would l 
give me leave, not to answer this gentleman s particulars, 
(for that I shall defer till I hear his proofs,) but to speak 
some few things concerning myself, and this grievous im 
peachment brought up against me."" 

Which being yielded unto me, I then spake as follows : 
" My Lords, My being in this place and in this condi 
tion, recalls to my memory that which I long since read in 
Seneca : Tormentum est } etiamsi absolutm quis faerit, causam 
dixisse m : Tis not a grief only, no, tis no less than a torment, 
for an ingenuous man to plead criminally, much more capi 
tally", at such a bar as this ; yea, though it should so fall out, 
that he be absolved. The great truth of this I find at present 
in myself; and so much the more, because I am a Christian ; 
and not that only, but in Holy Orders; and not so only, but 
by God s grace and goodness preferred to the greatest place 
this Church affords; and yet now brought, causam dicere, 
to plead, and for no less than life, at this great bar. And 
whatsoever the world thinks of me, (and they have been 
taught to think more ill than, I humbly thank Christ for 
it, I was ever acquainted with,) yet, my Lords, this I find, 
tormentum est, tis no less than torment to me to appear in 
this place to such an accusation. 

" Nay, my Lords, give me leave, I beseech you, to speak 
plain truth. No sentence, that can justly pass upon me, (and 
other I will never fear from your Lps.,) can go so near me as 
causam dixisse, to have pleaded for myself upon this occasion 
and in this place. For as for the sentence, (I thank God for 
it,) I am at 2 St. Paul s ward : If I have committed anything 
worthy of death, I refuse not to die P ; for I bless God, I have 
so spent my time, as that I am neither ashamed to live, nor 

1 [ their Lps. would originally your Lps. will J 

2 [ at interlined.] 

1 This Speech is extant also in c."J 

Rushw. p. 830, &c.; Heylin, p. 516, m Sen. de Benef. c. 28. [p. 

&c.; Pryn, p. 53, &c. [IT. Wharton s 293. Bipont. 1782.] 
note in the marg. of the MS. is this : n capitally or criminally, Rush- 

" An imperfect copy of this Speech is worth and Pryn. 
published by Mr.Prynn, in his History much more Rushw. and Pryn. 
of the Trial, p. 51, c., and from him F Acts xxv. 11. 
by Dr. Heylin, in Cypr. Angl. p. 516, 


Die Primo. afraid to die. Nor can the world be more weary of me, than 
I am of it ; for seeing the malignity which hath been raised 
against me by some men, I have carried my life in my hands 
these divers years past. But yet, my Lords, if none of 
these things, whereof these men accuse me, merit death by 
law; though I may not in this case, and from this bar, appeal 2.23 
unto Cresar; yet to your Lordships justice and integrity, 
I both may, and do appeal ; not doubting, but that God of 
His goodness will preserve my innocency. And as Job, in 
the midst of his affliction, said to his mistaken friends, so 
shall I to my accusers: God forbid I should justify you; 
till I die I will not remove my integrity from me ; I will 
hold it fast, and not let it go ; my heart shall not reproach 
me, as long as I live* 1 / 

" My Lords, I sec by the Articles, and have now heard 
from this gentleman, that the charge against me is divided 
into two main heads : r the laws of the land, and the religion 
by those laws established. 

" For the laws first, I think I may safely say, I have been, 
to my understanding, as strict an observer of them all the 
days of my life, so far as they concern me, as any man hath; 
and since I came into place, I have followed them, and been 
as much guided by them, as any (104) man that sat where 
I had the honour to sit. And for this I am sorry I have lost 
the witness 9 of the Lord Keeper Coventry, and of some other 
persons of honour, since dead. And the learned Counsel 
at law, which attended frequently at the Council-table, can 
witness (some of them*) that in references to that Board, 
and in debates arising at the Board, I was usually for that 
part of the cause where I found law to be. And if the 
counsel desired to have their client s cause referred to the 
law, (well I might move in some cases for charity, or con 
science, to have admittance, but) to the law I left them, if 
thither they would go. And how such a carriage as this 
through the whole course of my life, in private and public, 
can stand with an intention, nay a practice to overthrow the 

2 [ client s originally counsell ] 

i Job. xxvii. 5. s testimony Bush, and Pryn. 

r an endeavour to subvert [added l here present Heylin, and P.u?h. 
by] Rush, and Pryn. and Pryn. 


law, and to introduce an arbitrary government, which my DiePrimo. 
soul hath always hated, I cannot yet see. And His now 
many years since I learned of my great master (in humanis), 
Aristotle", Periculosum esse ; that it is a very dangerous 
thing to trust to the will of the judge, rather than the written 
law. And all kingdoms and commonwealths have followed 
his judgment ever since ; and the school-disputes have not 
dissented from it v . 

" Nay more, I have ever heen of opinion, that human laws 
bind the conscience, and have accordingly made conscience 
of observing them. And this doctrine I have constantly 
preached, as occasion hath been offered me. And how is it 
possible I should seek to overthrow those laws, which I held 
myself bound in conscience to keep and observe ? Especially, 
since an endeavour to overthrow law, is a far greater crime 
than to break or disobey any particular law whatsoever ; all 
particulars being swept away in that general. And, my 
Lords, that this is my judgment, both of parliaments and 
laws; I beseech your Lordships that I may read a short 
passage in * my book against Fisher the Jesuit, which was 
printed and published to the world before these troubles fell 
on me, and before I could so much as suspect this charge 
could come against me; and therefore could not be pur 
posely written to serve any turn *." (I had leave, and did 
read it ; but for brevity s sake refer the reader to the book 
itself 1 .) 

" As for religion, I was born and bred up in, and under 
the Church of England, as it yet stands established by law. 
I have, by God s blessing and the favour of my Prince, 
grown up in it to the years which are now upon me, and to 
the place of preferment which I yet^ bear. And in this 
Church, by the grace and goodness of God, I resolve to die. 

1 [ in 

2 [ ant 

originally out ] 
and therefore . . . turn. on opposite page.] 

u Arist, ii. Polit. c. 7, 8. [The two v Tho. ii. 2se. q. 60. Ar. 5. [The 

passages referred to, are the following : Conclnsio of this Article is ; " Neces- 

&i6irtpovKatiToyvu(j.<Ji Q>sl3\TlovKpli>(iv, sarium est, quodvis judicium semper 

aAAot Kara rd ypd/,Ta Kal TOVS VO/JLOVS. sccundum legis scripturam fieri."] 

Cap. vii. (al. ix.) p. (38. Oxon. 1810. * Confer, with Fisher, 26. num. 

And, To /i?? Kara ypd^ara dpxfiv, d\\ 14. p. 211. [Lond. 1639.; pp. 234, 235. 

atiToyif(0fj.6v(a$, liri(j<pa.\ti. Cap. viii. of the present edition.] 

(al. x) p. 73.] y now Kush. and Pryn. 


Die Prime. "I have, ever since I understood aught in Divinity, kept 
one constant tenor in this my profession, without variation 
or shifting from one opinion to another, for any worldly 
ends. And if my conscience would have suffered me to shift 
tenets in religion with time and occasion, I could easily have 
slid through all the difficulties which have pressed upon me 
in this kind. But, of l all diseases, I have ever hated a palsy 
in religion z ; well knowing, that too often a dead-palsy ends 
that disease, in the fearful forgetfulness of God and His 

"Ever since I came in place, I laboured nothing more, 
than that the external public worship of God (too a much 
slighted in most parts of this kingdom) might be preserved, 
and that with as much decency and uniformity as might be ; 
being still of opinion, that unity cannot long continue in the 
Church, where uniformity is shut out at the church door. 
And I evidently saw, that the public neglect of God s service 
in the outward face of it, and the nasty lying of many places 
dedicated to that service, had almost cast a damp upon the 
true and inward worship of God ; which, while we live in the 
body, needs external helps, and all little enough to keep it in 
any vigour. And this I did to 2 the uttermost of my know 
ledge, according both to law and canon, and with the 
consent and liking of the people. Nor did any command 
issue out from me against the one, or without the other, that 
I know of. 

" Further, my Lords, give me leave, I beseech you, to tell 
you 3b this also : That I have as little acquaintance with recu 
sants of any sort, as I believe any man of place in England 
hath c . And for my kindred, no one of them was ever a 
recusant, but Sir William Webb, grandchild to my uncle 
Sir W. Webb, sometimes Ld. Mayor of London ; and him d , 
with some of his children, I reduced back again to the 
Church of England, as is well known, and I as able to prove. 

1 [ of interlined.] 2 [ did to originally did according to ] 

3 [ to tell you originally written to acquaint you with ] 

z held a palsy, &c. most dan- Pryn. 

gerous ; Rushw. e my place hath or ever had since 

a so Rush, and Pryn. the Reformation. Rush, and Pryn. 

h acquaint you with Rush, and ri since which, Rush, and Pryn. 


One thing more I humbly desire may be thought on : Die Prime, 
tis this ; I am fallen into a great deal of obloquy in matter 
of religion, and that so (105) far, as that tis charged in the 
Articles, that I have endeavoured to advance and bring in 
Popery. Perhaps, my Lords, I am not ignorant what party 
of men have raised this scandal upon me, nor for what end, 
nor perhaps by whom set on. But, howsoever, I would fain 
have a good reason given me, (if my conscience lead me e 
that way, and that with my conscience I could subscribe to 
the Church of Rome,) what should have kept me here (before 
my imprisonment) to endure the libels f , and the slanders, 
and the base usage in all kinds, which have been put upon 
me, and these to end in this question for my life. I say, 
I would fain know a good reason of this. 

225 " For first, my Lords, is it because of any pledges I have 
in the world to sway me against my conscience ? No, sure. 
For I have nor wife nor children, to cry out upon me to stay 
with them ; and if I had, I hope the call of my conscience 
should be. heard above them. 

" Or, secondly, is it because I was loth to leave the honour 
and the profit of the place I was risen unto ? Surely no : 
for I desire your Lordships and all the world else should 
know, I do much scorn honour and profit, both the one 
and the other, in comparison of my conscience. Besides, it 
cannot be imagined by any reasonable man, but that if I 
could have complied with Rome, I should not have wanted 
either 2 honour or profit. And suppose I could not have 
so much of either, as here I had, yet sure, would my con 
science have served me that way, less of either with my 
conscience would have prevailed with me, more than greater 
against my conscience. 

" Or, thirdly, is it because I lived here at ease, and was 
loth to venture the loss of that ? Not so neither : for what 
soever the world may be pleased to think of me, I have led 
a very painful life, and such as I could have been very well 
content to change, had I well known how. And had my 
conscience led * me that way, I am sure I might have lived at 
1 [ place interlined.] 2 [ either originally written both ] 

e stood Rush, and Pryn. * < served Rush, and Pryn. 

f libelling, Rush, and Pryn. 


DiePrimo. far more ease; and either have avoided the barbarous libel- 
lings, and other bitter and grievous scorns which I have here 
endured, or at the least been out of the hearing of them. 
Nay, my Lords, I am as l innocent in this business of religion, 
as 2 free from all practice, or so much as thought of practice 
for any alteration to Popery, or any way blemishing the true 
Protestant religion established in the Church of England, as 
I was when my mother first bare me into the world. And let 
nothing be spoken against me but truth, and I do here chal 
lenge whatsoever is between heaven and hell, to say their 
worst against me in point of my religion : in which, by God s 
grace, I have ever hated dissimulation ; and had I not hated 
it, perhaps it might have been better with me for worldly 
safety, than now it is. But it can no way become a Christian 
bishop to halt with God. 

" Lastly, if I had any purpose to blast the true religion 
established in the Church of England, and to introduce 
Popery ; sure I took a very wrong way to it. For, my Lords, 
I have stayed as many h that were going to Home, and reduced 
as many 1 that were already gone, as (I believe) any bishop 
or other minister in this kingdom hath done ; and some of 
them men 3 of great abilities, and some of them k persons of 
great place. And is this the way, my Lords, to introduce 
Popery ? I beseech your Lps., consider it well. For surely, 
if I had blemished the true Protestant religion, I could not 
have settled such men in it 4 : and if I had purposed l to 
introduce Popery, I would never have reduced such men 
from it. 

" And though it please the author of the Popish Koyal 
Favourite/ to say, ( That scarce one of the swaying lord 
prelates is able to say, that ever he converted one papist to 
our religion m ; yet how void of charity this speech of his is, 
and how full of falsehood, shall appear by the number of 

1 [ as originally written so ] 2 [ as orig. written so ] 

3 [ men originally written persons ] 

4 [ I could ... in it : originally written, how could I have settled &c.] 

h more Rush, and Pryn. Favo. p. 71. [This is Archbishop 

5 more Rush, and Pryn. Laud s own note.] Pryn, in printing 

k men of great abilities, and some the Archbishop s Speech, omitteth this 

Rush, and Pryn. whole passage concerning himself. 

1 promised Rush, and Pryn. H. W. 
m W. Pryn in his Popish Royal 


those persons, whom, by God s blessing upon my labours, Die Primo. 
I have settled in the true Protestant religion established in 
226 England : and with your Lps . leave, I shall name them, that 
you may see both their number and their condition ; though 
I cannot set them down in that order of time, in which I 
either converted or settled them. 

" 1. And first, Hen. Birkhead of Trinity Coll. in Oxford 11 , 
was seduced by a Jesuit, and brought up to London to be 
conveyed beyond the seas. His friends complained to me : 
I had the happiness to find him out, and the blessing from 
God to settle his conscience. So he returned to Oxford, and 
there continued . 

"2.\Two daughters of Sir Rich. Lechford in Surrey 1 
3. J were sent to sea to be carried to a nunnery. I 
heard of it, and caused them to be brought back, before they 
were got out of the Thames. I settled their consciences, and 
both of them sent me great thanks, since I was a prisoner in 
the Tower. 

(106) " 4.1 Two scholars of St. John s Coll. in Cambridge, 
5. /Topping and Ashton, had slipped away from 
the College, and here at London had got the French ambas 
sador s pass, (I have the pass to show) : I found means to get 
them to me, and I thank God settled both their minds, sent 
them back to their College. Afterwards hearing of Topping s 
wants, I allowed him means till I procured him a Fellowship 1 : 
and he is at this time a very hopeful young man r , as most of 
his time in that University, a minister, and chaplain in house 

n [Henry Birkhead, or Birchhead, dence to affirm in the margin of his 
afterwards elected Fellow of All Souls book, that this convert of the Arch- 
College by Archbishop Laud s influ- bishop s was " the author of all the 
ence. He retained his Fellowship libellous Popish Oxford Aulicus s," al- 
during the Rebellion, but resigned it though he knew full well, that his 
at the Restoration, and became Regis- name was John Birkenhead ; and adds, 
trar of the Diocese of Norwich. He that at the naming of this convert, 
was the founder of the Professorship most of the lords and auditors smiled ; 
of Poetry. (Wood, Ath. Ox. iv. 573.)] but saith not one word of the Arch- 

See Rushworth, p. 832, who re- bishop s correction of their mistake. 

lateth, that when some of the Lords, H. W. [Henry Wharton is mistaken 

hearing the name of Birkenhead, and in this remark of his relating to 

imagining him to be the author of the Prynne (see Prynne s Cant. Doom, 

Oxford Aulicus, smiled at it; the p. 55.)] 

Archbishop taking notice of it, stopped P [Of Shelwood in that county.] 

and assured the Lords, that he meant in St. John s : Rush, and Pryn. 

not him, but another person of like r [He held his Fellowship till he 

name. Yet after all, Pryn, in pub- was ejected by the Engagement, 

lishing this speech, hath the impu- (Walker s Sufferings, par. ii. p. 150.)] 


Die Primo. at this present to the Right Honourable the Earl of West 
morland s . 

" 6.^1 Sir Wi. Webb my kinsman, and two of his daugh- 

7. rters; and the better to secure them in religion, I 

8. J was at the charge (their father being utterly decayed 1 ) 
to marry them l to two religious Protestants ; and they both 
continued very constant. 9. And his eldest son I took from 
him, placed him with a careful divine 11 , maintained him 
divers years, and then settled him with a gentleman of good 

" 10. 1 The next, in 4 my remembrance, was the Lord Maio, 

ll.J of Ireland v , who, with another gentleman (whose 

name I cannot recal), was brought to me to Fulham, by Mr. 

Jefford*, a servant of his Majesty s, and well known to divers 

of your Lordships. 

" 12. The Right Honourable the Ld. Duke of Buckingham 
was almost lost from the Church of England, between the 
continual cunning labours of Fisher the Jesuit, and the per 
suasions of the Lady his mother * z . After some miscarriages, 
King James of ever blessed memory commanded me to that 
service. I had God s blessing upon me so far, as to settle my 
Ld. Duke to his death. 13. And I brought the Lady his 
mother a to the Church again ; but she was not so happy as to 
continue with us. 

" 14. The Lady Marquis (sic) Hamilton b was much solicited 
by some priests, and much troublecljn mind about it. My 
Ld. spake with me of it; and though at that present I was 227 
so overlaid with business, that I could not (as I much desired) 

1 [ them interlined.] 

s [Mildmay Fane, second Earl of * Chesford, Rush, and Pryn. 

Westmoreland.] f and sister. Rush, and Pryn. 

1 [He was supported in a measure z [Mary, the widow of Sir George Vil- 

by the Archbishop, as appears from a liers, Countess of Buckingham in her 

receipt given by him to the Arch- own right : after her first husband s 

bishop for 2QL, endorsed in the Arch- death she married, first, Sir William 

bishop s own hand, now preserved in Rayner, and secondly, Sir Thomas 

the Tanner MSS. vol. Ixx. fol. 100.] Compton.] 

u [Thomas Webbe, placed under the n Right Honourable the Countess 

charge of Bancroft, Bishop of Oxford. of Buckingham, Rush, and Pryn. 

See Hist, of Chancellorship, p. 261 b [Lady Mary Feilding, daughter of 

of this Edit.] William Earl of Denbigh, by Susanna 

v [Prynne terms him, in his mar- sister to George Duke of Bucking- 

ginal note, a great actor in the ham. She married James Duke of 

late Irish Rebellion against the Pro- Hamilton.] 
testants. ] 


wait upon that honourable person myself; yet I told my Ld. DiePrimo. 

I would send one to his Lp., that should diligently attend 

that service, and that I would give him the best direction 

I could. And this I did, and, God be thanked, she died very 

quietly, and very religiously, and a good Protestant : and 

my Lord Marquis told me, he had acknowledged this service 

of mine to an honourable lord, whom I now see present. 

"15. Mr. Chillingworth s c learning and abilities are suffi 
ciently known to all your Lordships. He was gone, and 
settled at Doway. My letters brought him back; and he 
lived and died a defender of the Church of England. And 
that this is so, your Lps. cannot but know : for Mr. Pryn took 
away l my letters, and all the papers which concerned him, 
and they were examined at the Committee d . 

" 16.1 Mr. Digby was a priest; and Mr. James Gentleman 6 , 

17.J a schoolmaster in a recusant s house. This latter 

was brought to me by a minister (as far as I remember) in 

Buckinghamshire. I converted both of them, and they remain 


" 18. Dr. Hart, a civilian f , son to a neighbour of mine at 
Fulham. He was so far gone, that he had written part of his 
Motives which wrought, as he said, that change in him. 
I got sight of them ; showed him wherein he was deceived ; 
had God s blessing to settle his conscience ; and then caused 
an able divine to answer his Motives/ and give him the copy. 

" 19. There were beside these, Mr. Christopher Sebum, 
a gentleman of an ancient family in Herefordshire ; and Sir 
Wi. Spencer of Yarnton in Oxfordshire %. 

" 20. ) The sons and heirs of Mr. Wintchome h , and Mr. 
21.J Williscot 1 , whom I sent with their friends good 

1 [ took away in margin.] 

c "A desperate apostate-papist; Mr. prefixed to his Works. It may be 

Cheynel s sermon at his funeral in- stated, however, that there are in MSS. 

forms us how good a Protestant he Lamb. Numb. 943, pp. 857 935, se- 

lived and died." Thus godly Will, veral papers relating to Chillingworth, 

Pryn in his marginal note on this and some of his own letters.] 
place, p. 56. [There are several other e a gentleman, Rushw. and Pryn. 
marginal notes by Prynne in the * [This was probably Rich. Hart of 

same style, which it is not thought Alban Hall.] 
worth while to introduce.] [The second baronet. The baro- 

d [It is not necessary to give any netcy is now extinct.] 
account of so well known a person as h Winchcomb, Rushw. and Pryn. 
Chillingworth. Antony Wood s Me- ! Wollescot, Rushw. and Pryn. 
moir may be consulted, and the Life 

LAUD. VOL. iv. 


DiePrimo. liking to Wadham College in Oxford; and I received a certi 
ficate, anno 1638, of their continuing in conformity to the 
Church of England : nor did ever any of these relapse again 
to Rome, but only the old Countess of Buckingham, and Sir 
Wi. Spencer, that ever I heard of k . .And if any of your 
Lordships doubt of the truth of any of these particulars, I am 
able and ready l to bring full proof of them all. And by this 
time I hope it appears, that one 2 of the swaying prelates of 
the time is 3 able to say, he hath converted one papist to the 
Protestant religion/ And let 4 any clergyman of England 5 
come forth, and give a better account of his zeal to this 
present Church. 

" And now, my Lords, with my most humble thanks for 
your Lps/ favour and patience in hearing me, I shall cease 
to be further troublesome for the present ; not doubting but 
I shall be 6 able to answer whatever shall be particularly 
objected against me." 

(107) After I had ended this speech, I was commanded to 
withdraw. As I went from the bar, there was Alderman Hoyle 
of York 1 , and some other, which I knew not, very angry, 
and saying, it was a very strange conversion that I was like 
to make of them ; with other terms of scorn. I went patiently 
into the little Committee-chamber at the entering into the 
House. Thither Mr. Peters m followed me in great haste, 
and began to give me ill language, and told me that he, and 228 
other ministers, were able to name thousands, that they had 
converted n . I knew him not, as having never seen him (to 
my remembrance) in my life, though I had heard enough of 

1 [ and ready in margin.] 2 [ one originally written some ] 

3 [ is originally written was ] 

* [ And let originally written And now let ] 
[ of England in margin.] 6 [ be interlined.] 

k It being only in God s power, Montaigne, and became Lecturer of 

not mine, to preserve them from re- S. Sepulchre s; till he was obliged, on 

lapse. Rushw. and Pryn. Note, that account of his profligate conduct, to 

the vulgar copies of this speech, printed leave England. On his return, he 

in Rush. &c., are very different from took so active a part with the factious 

this, being taken from the Arch- party, particularly in the King s death, 

bishop s mouth as he spoke ; this from that he was especially excepted from 

the original, as he wrote it. H. W. the Act of Pardon, and was hung and 

1 [Thomas Hoyle, M.P. for the city quartered in 1660.] 
of York.] n Hundreds of real converts to 

m [This notorious person, Hugh Christ, for every one of his pretended 

Peters, was originally an actor ; he ones, and that himself had converted 

was afterwards ordained by Bishop above 120 papists. Pryn, p. 56. 


him. And as I was going to answer him, one of my counsel, Die Prime. 
Mr. Hearn, seeing how violently he began, stepped between 
us, and told him of his uncivil carriage towards me in my 
affliction : and indeed he came as if he would have struck me. 
By this time, some occasion brought the E. of Essex into that 
room, and Mr. Hearn complained to him of Mr. Peters his 
usage of me ; who very honourably checked him for it, and 
sent him forth. Not long after l , Mr. Hearn was set upon 
by Alderman Hoyle, and used as coarsely as Peters had used 
me, and (as far as I remember) only for being of counsel with 
such a one as I ; though he was assigned to that office by 
the Lords. 

What put them into this choler, I know not ; unless they 
were angry to hear me say so much in my own defence ; 
especially for the conversion of so many, which I think they 
little expected. For the next day a great lord met a friend 
of mine, and grew very angry with him 2 about me ; not for 
bearing to ask what I meant, to name the particulars, which 
I had mentioned in the end of my speech, saying, many godly 
ministers had done more. And not long after this, (the day 
I now remember not,) Mr. Peters 3 came and preached at 
Lambeth, and there told them in the pulpit, that a great 
prelate, their neighbour, (or in words to that effect,) had 
bragged in the Parliament-house, that he had converted 
two-and-twenty ; but that he had wisdom enough, not to tell 
how many thousands he had perverted; with much more 
abuse. God of His mercy relieve me from these reproaches, 
and lay not these men s causeless malice to their charge. 

After a little stay, I received my dismission for that time, 
and a command to appear again the next day at nine in the 
morning ; which was my usual hour to attend, though I was 
seldom called into the House in two hours after. 

1 [ after, interlined.] 2 [ him interlined.] 

3 [ Mr. Peters interlined.] 

JP 2 


CAP. XXIII. 229 


Mar. 13, 1 CAME as commanded. But here before the charge begins, 
J, 64 - d Die I shall set down the Article^, upon which, according to the 
order of March 9, they which were entrusted with the evi 
dence, meant this day to proceed. They were the first and 
second original Articles, and the second additional Article ; 
which follow in these words : 

1. That he hath traitorously endeavoured to subvert the 
fundamental laws and government of the kingdom of 
England, and instead thereof, to introduce an arbitrary 
and tyrannical government against law ; and to that end 
hath wickedly and traitorously advised his Majesty, that 
he might at his own will and pleasure levy and take 
m,oney of his subjects, without their consent in Parlia 
ment ; and this he affirmed was warrantable by the law 
of God. 

2. He hath for the better accomplishment of that his trai 
torous design, advised and procured divers sermons and 
other discourses to be preached, printed, and published : 
in which the authority of Parliaments, and the force of 
the laws of the kingdom, are denied, and an absolute a,nd 
unlimited power over the persons and estates of his 
Majesty s subjects is maintained and defended, not only 
in the King, but also in himself and other bishops, above 
and against the law ; and he hath been a great protector, 
favourer, and promoter of the publishers of such false and 
pernicious opinions. 

Second additional Article : 

2. That within the space of ten years last past, the said 
Archbishop hath treacherously endeavoured to subvert the 


fundamental laws of this realm ; and to that end hath Die 
in like manner endeavoured to advance the power of the e 
Council- table, the Canons of the Church, and the King s 
prerogative, above the laws and statutes of the realm. 
And for manifestation thereof, about six years last past, 
being then a privy counsellor to his Majesty, and sitting 
at the Council-table, he said, That as long as he sat 
there, they should know that an order of that Board 
should be of equal force with a law or act of Parlia 
ment. And at another time used these words, f That he 
(108) hoped ere long, that the Canons of the Church and 
the King s prerogative should be of as great power as an 
Act of Parliament. And at another time said, That 
those which would not yield to the King s power, he would 
crush them to pieces. 

.^30 These three Articles they begun with ; and the first man 
appointed to begin was Mr. Maynard. And after some 
general things against me, as if I were the most violent man 
for all illegal ways ; the first particular charged against me 1 1. 
was out of my Diary. The words these : The King declared 
his resolution for a Parliament in case of the Scottish Re 
bellion. The first movers of it were my Lord Deputy of 
Ireland, the Lord Marquis Hamilton, and myself. And a 
resolution voted at the Board, to assist the King in extra 
ordinary ways, if the Parliament should prove peevish, and 
refuse, &c. a The time was Decemb. 5, 1639. That which 
was enforced from these words was, first, that I bestowed 
the epithet ( peevish upon the Parliament ; and the second, 
that this voting f to assist the King in extraordinary ways, 
in case the Parliament refused/ proceeded from my counsel. 

1. To this I replied : And first I humbly desired o nee for 
all 2 , that all things concerning law may be saved entire unto 
me, and my Counsel to be heard in every such particular. 

2. Secondly, That the epithet peevish was a very peevish 
word, if written by me. " I say, if : for I know into whose 


the first . . . against me in marg.] 
once for all, in marg.] 

[See vol. Hi. p. 233.] 


Die hands my book is fallen ; but what hath been done with it 

I know not. This is to be seen, some passages in that 
book are half burnt out b , whether purposely, or by chance, 
God knows : and some other papers taken by the same 
hand from me, are now wanting. Is it not possible there 
fore some art may be used in this ? " Besides, if I did use 
the word peevish, it was in my private pocket-book, which 
I well hoped should never be made public; and then no 
disgrace thereby affixed to the a Parliament. And I hope, 
should a man forget himself in such an expression of some 
passage in some one Parliament, (and this was no more,) it 2 
is far short of anything that can be called 3 treason. Aud 
yet further, most manifest it is in the very words themselves, 
that I do not bestow the title upon that Parliament, in that 
case ; but say only, if it should prove peevish ; which is 
possible, doubtless, that in some particulars a Parliament 
may : though for the happiness of this kingdom, I would to 
God it were impossible. But suppose the word peevish had 
been 4 absolutely spoken by me ; is it lawful upon record to 
say the Parliament an. 42 Hen. III. was insanum Parlia- 
mentum, a mad Parliament; and that in the 6 Hen. IV. 
indoctum, an unlearned Parliament ; and that in the 4 Hen. 
VI. a Parliament of clubs c ? And shall it be high treason 
in me to say a Parliament in some one particular was 
peevish ? or but to suppose if it were ? Can any man think, 
that an unlearned, or a mad Parliament, or one of clubs, did 
not do something peevishly? Might my predecessor, Tho. 
Arundel, tell the Commons openly in Parliament, that their 
petitions were sacrilegious d ? And may not I so much as 
suppose some one action of a Parliament to be peevish, but 
it shall be treason ? May an ordinary historian say of 
that unlearned Parliament, that the Commons were fit to 
enter common with their cattle e , for any virtue they had 

1 [ the interlined.] 2 [ it interlined.] 

3 [ anything . . . called on opposite page.] 

4 [ had been originally were ] 

b [See vol. iii. p. 235.] d Speed, in Hen. IV. 42. [p. 619. 

c Sir Ed. Cook, Inst. p. 3. c. 1. [p. 2. col. 1. Lond. 1611.] 
Lond. 1648.] e Ibid, [infra.] 


more than brute beasts ? And may not I in my private notes Die 
write the word peevish of them without treason l ? Secundo. 

231 3. Thirdly, Whereas tis said, That the voting at the 
Council-table to assist the King in extraordinary ways, if 
&c., was by my counsel : there is no such thing in my Diary. 
There is, that I with others advised a Parliament : but there 
is not one word, that the voting mentioned at the Council- 
table proceeded from any advice of mine. So there is no 
proof from my Diary ; " and other proof beside that, was not 
so much as urged; which was not in favour, but because 
they had it not. For had they had any other proof, I see 
already, it should not have been lost for want of urging 2 ." 
Where, I desired their Lps. also to observe, in what a diffi 
culty I have lived with some men, who will needs make me 
a great enemy to Parliaments, and yet are angry with me, 
that I was one with others who moved for that Parliament. 
So it seems, nothing that I do can content some men, for 
a Parliament, or against it ; nothing must be well, if the 
counsel be mine. 

4. Fourthly, For the voting of assistance in extraordi 
nary ways/ I was included in the general vote of the Table ; 
and therefore that cannot be called or accounted my counsel. 

5. Fifthly, It is expressed in my Diary, whence all this 
proof is taken, that it was in and for the Scottish business, 
and so is within the Act of Oblivion f . " And these answers 
I gave to Mr. Brown, when, in the summing -up of the 
charge against me in the honourable House of Commons, 
he made this to be my counsel to the King : and he began 
with it, in his charging of the points against law V 

The second particular this day charged against me, was, II. 
That after the ending of the late Parliament, I did use these 
words to the King, ( That now he might use his own power/ 
or words to that effect. This was attested by Sir Henry Vane 
the elder, then a counsellor, and presents. 

1 [ But suppose the word . . . treason ] on opposite page.] 

2 [ For had they . . . urging. on opposite page.] 

3 [ Fourthly, . . . against law. on a separate paper.] 

f [See above, p. 45.] order of the House, he being too ill to 

e [The examination of Sir H. Vane attend. The substance of the evidence 

had been taken by Commission, by is given in Lords Journals, March 13.] 


l>ie 1. To this my answer was, That I spake not these words, 

Secundo. . A , . ,, 

either 111 terms, or in sense, to the uttermost of my memory. 

2. Secondly, If I had spoken these words, either they 
were ill-advised words, but no treason ; and then they come 
not home to the charge : or they are treasonable, and then 
I ought by law to have been tried within six months 1 . 
" Mr. Brown, in his reply to me in the House of Commons, 
said, That this statute expired with the Queen, because it 
concerned none but her, and the heirs of her body. I had 
here urged Sir Edward Coke 1 , as urging this statute, and 
commending the moderation of it. But I was therein mis 
taken, for he speaks of 1 Eliz. c. iJ And that statute is in 
force, and is for trial within six months, for such crimes as 
are within that statute. So it comes all to one for my cause, 
so either of the statutes be in force. And to this charge in 
general, I gave the same answers which are here l ." 

3. Thirdly, Sir Hen. Vane is in this a single witness ; 
whereas by law, he that is accused of treason, must be 
convicted by two witnesses, or his own confession without 
violence k ; neither of which is in this case : t( And strange it 
is to me, that at such a full Table, no person of honour 
should remember such a speech, but Sir Henry Vane *." 

4. Fourthly, Both this and the former charge relate to the 232 
Scottish business, and so are within the Act of Oblivion, 
which I have pleaded. 

" Besides, here is nothing expressed in the words charged, 
which savours of practice, conspiracy, combination of force ; 
and cannot therefore (109) possibly be adjudged treason; 
especially since there is no expression made in the words 
witnessed, what power is meant. For what should hinder 
the King to use his own power, but legal still ; since nothing 
is so properly a King s own power, as that which is made or 
declared his own by law. As for the 3 inference, That < this 
was called his own, in opposition to law: first, Sir Henry 

1 [ Mr. Brown, . . . are here. inserted afterwards, mostly on a separate 

2 [ And strange . . . Vane. inserted afterwards, mostly on a separate paper! 

3 [ the interlined.] 

11 1 Eliz. c. 6. antepenult. c. 12. [ 19.] 

1 Part 4. Instit. c. 74. [p. 324.] k 1 Ed. VI. c. 12. ult. and 1 Eliz 

i 1 Eliz. c. 1. [ 31.] and 1 Ed. VI. c. 6. ult. 


Vane is a witness to the words only, and not to any infe- Die 
renoe : so the words have but one witness, and the l inference ( 
none. And perhaps it were as well for themselves, as for 
persons questioned in great courts, if they who are employed 
about the evidence would be more sparing of their inferences ; 
many men laying hold of them without reason or proof 1 . 

" Lastly, for the honour of Sir Henry Vane let me not 
forget this ; he is a man of some years, and memory is one 
of the first powers 2 of man on which age works ; and yet 
his memory so good, so fresh, that he alone can remember 
words spoken at a full Council-table, which no person of 
honour remembers but himself. Had any man else remem 
bered such words, he could not have stood single in this 
testimony. But I would not have him brag of it : for I have 
read in St. Augustin m , that quidam pessimi, some, even the 
worst of men, have great memories, and are tanto pejores, so 
much the worse for having them. God bless Sir Henry." 

I have stayed the longer upon these two, because they 
were apprehended to be of more weight than most which 
follow. The next was a head containing my illegal pressures 
for money, under which the next particular was 3 , That in III. 
the case of ship-money I was very angry against one Samuel 
Sherman of Dedham in Essex. That I should say Dedham 
was a maritime town : and that when the sum demanded of 
him 4 was named, I should say, a proper sum ; whereas the 
distress came to eleven subsidies n . 

To this I answered : First, here was no proof but Sher 
man ; and in his own cause. 

Secondly, he himself says no more, than that he believes 
I was the instrument of his oppression (as he called it) : 
whereas his censure was laid upon him by the Council-table, 
riot by me ; nor was I in any other fault, than that I was 

1 [ the interlined.] a [ powers originally written things ] 

3 [ The next . . . was/ on opposite page. Originally written, The third 
particular was/] 4 [ demanded of him in margin.] 

1 The dreadful licence of inferences minus possunt, quod male cogitanfc, 

among our English pleaders in cases oblivisci." S.] Aug. 1. vii. de Civ. 

of death. Speed, in H. VII. 61. Dei, c. 3. [Op., torn. vii. col. 266. B.] 
[p. 746. col. 1.] n [The sum demanded of the town 

m [" Quidam vero pessimi memoria of Dedham was 206?. (See Lords 

sunt mirabili, tanto pejores, quanto Journals.)] 


Die present, and gave my vote with the rest. So here s no proof 

Secundo. ,, 7 , -, . -, n . ~ 

at all, but his belief. 

" Lastly, here can be no treason, but against Dedham, or 
Sherman, that I can discover." 

IV. The next to Sherman comes in my great friend, Alderman 
Atkins ; and he testifies, That when he was brought to the 
Council- table, about the ship-money, none was so violent 
against him as I was, and that this pressure for ship-money 
was before the Judges had given sentence for the King 1 . And 
that at another time I pressed him hard to lend money, the 
King being present : at which time he conceived that I 233 
favoured Alderman Harrison for country sake; because him 
self Avas committed, and not the other 2 . 

To this I must confess, I did use to be serious and zealous 
too in his Majesty s service ; but not with any the least 
intention to violate law. And if this here instanced were 
before the judgment given for the King, yet it was long after 
the Judges had put the legality of it under their hands . 
And I for my part could not conceive the Judges would put 
that under their hands to be law, which should after be found 
unlawful. Therefore in this, as I erred with honourable com 
pany at the Council-table, so both they and I had, as we 
thought, sufficient guides to lead us. 

As for the partiality which he puts upon me in preserving 
my countryman, Alderman Harrison, from prison : First, he 
himself durst not affirm it upon his oath, but says only that 
he conceives ; I favoured him ; but his conceit is no proof. 
Secondly, if I had favoured him, and done him that office, 
tis far short of treason. But the truth is, Alderman Harrison 
gave a modest and a civil answer ; but this man was rough, 
even to unmannerliness, and, so far as I remember, was 
committed for that. 

" And whereas he says, I pressed him hard to lend money, 
and that none was so violent as I ; he is much mistaken. 
For of all men in that fraternity, I durst never press him 
hard for anything, least of all for money. For I knew not 

1 [ and that . . . King-. on opposite page.] 

2 [Here originally added, but erased. And that this for ship-money. ] 

[The Judges had delivered their not delivered against Hampden till 
opinion on the legality of ship-money June 14, 1638. (See Rush worth s Col- 
February 163; but judgment was lections, vol. ii. pp. 355, 600.)] 


what stuffing might fly out of so full a cushion, as afterwards, Die 
tis said 1 , there did, when, being a 2 colonel, he was pressed, Secundo - 
but not hard, in a little skirmishing in Finsbury Fields?." 

Then it was urged, that I aggravated a crime against V. 
Alderman Chambers, and told him, that if the King had 
many such chambers, he would have never a chamber to rest 
in : that in the case of tonnage and poundage he laboured to 
take bread from the King q : and that I pressed upon him in 
the business of coat and conduct-money. 

(110) To this I gave this answer, That by the affection 
Mr. Chambers then showed the King, I had some reason to 
think, he desired so many chambers to his use 3 , that if the 
King had many such subjects, he might want a chamber for 
himself; or to that effect 4 : and the violence of his carriage 
in that honourable assembly gave just occasion to other men 
to think so. But as for the business of tonnage and poundage 13 , 
and of coat and conduct-money, I conceived both were lawful 
on the King s part. And I was led into this opinion by the 
express judgment of some lords present, and the silence of 
others in that behalf; none of the great lawyers at the table 
contradicting either : and no witness to this but Alderman 
Chambers himself. 

The sixth particular was, That 5 I urged the business of VI. 
ship-money upon Alderman Adams r . 

To this my answer was, That I never pressed the ship- 
money but as other lords did at the Council-table, nor upon 
other grounds : nor doth Aid. Adams say any more, than that 
he was pressed to this payment by me and others/ And to 
me it seems strange, and will, I hope, to all men else, that 
234 this, and the like, should be a common act of the Lords at 
the Council- table, but should be high treason in nobody but 
in me. And howsoever, if it be treason, tis against three 
aldermen, Atkins, Chambers, and Adams. 

The seventh particular was, That I was so violent about VII. 

[ tis said, in marg.] 2 [ a interlined.] 

3 [ his use, in marg. Originally written himself/] 
* [ or to that effect: in marg.] 5 [ That interlined.] 

P [Archbishop Bancroft terms this 1 [See Kushworth s Collections, vol. 

an unsavoury passage, and remarks i. p. 639, and vol. ii. p. 9.] 

on the quibble subsequently made on r [ Addams and Warner were Sheriffs 

Alderman Chambers * name.] of London, 1639, 1640.] 


P ie the slighting of the King s proclamations, as that I said, 


A proclamation was ot as great force, or equal to a statute- 
law : and that I compared the King to the stone spoken of in 
the Gospel, that * Whosoever falls upon it shall be broken ; 
but upon whomsoever it falls, it will grind him to powder 8 / 
And for this they brought three witnesses, Mr. Griffin, and 
Tho. Wood, and Rich. Hayles 1 *. 

1. This was in the case of the soap-business, and the two" 
witnesses were soap-boilers. They and their Company slighted 
all the proclamations which the King set out 2 : and all the 
Lords in the Star- Chamber were much offended (as I conceive 
they had great reason to be) at the great and open daring of 
that whole Company. And whatsoever sentence passed upon 
them in that whole business, was given 3 by the Court of 
Star-Chamber, not by me. 

For the words ; First, these men have good memories, 
that can punctually, being plain ordinary men, swear words 
spoken full twelve years since : and yet, as good as their 
memory is, they swear doubtfully touching the time ; as that 
the words were spoken in May 1632 or 33. 

2. Secondly, my Lords, tis impossible these \\ords should 
be spoken by me. For I think no man in this honourable 
presence thinks me so ignorant, as that I should not know 
the vast difference that is between an Act of Parliament and 
a Proclamation. Neither can these gentlemen which press 
the evidence think me so wilfully foolish so to speak, con 
sidering they accuse me here for a cunning delinquent. " So 
God forgive these men the falsehood and the malice of this 

3. For the words spoken of the stone in Scripture, tis so 
long since, I cannot recal whether I said it or no ; nor have 
I any great reason to believe these 5 angry witnesses in their 
own cause. But if, by way of allusion, I did apply that place 
to the King and them, tis far enough from treason. " And 

and Kich. Hayles. in marg.] 

concerning that business erased.] 3 [ given interlined.] 

the falsehood . . . oath. on opposite page. 

these originally written these two ] 

8 S. Mat. xxi. 44. Hay. ] 

1 [The names as given in the Lords u two of the 
Journals are Griffith, Woodstock, and 


let them, and their like, take heed lest it prove true upon Die 
themselves : for seldom do subjects fall upon their king, but Secundo - 
in the end they are broken ; and if it so happen that he falls 
upon them, they are ground to powder." And Salomon 
taught me this answer, where he says, The anger of a king 
is death V And yet I would not be mistaken. For I do 
not conceive this is spoken of a king and his natural anger 
(though it be good wisdom to stir as little passion in kings as 
- may be) ; but of his legal anger : according to which, if the 
stone roll strictly, few men can so live, but for something or 
other they may be in danger of grinding. 

4. And for these soap-boilers, they have little cause to be 
so vehement against me. For if the sentence passed against 
them in the Star-Chamber ^ were in anything illegal, though 
it were done by that court, and not by me ; yet I alone, so 
soon as I heard but muttering of it, was the only means of 
resettling them and their trade, " which none of all the 
Lords else took care of. And the sum of these answers I 
gave to Mr. Browne, when he gave up the sum of his charge 
against me 1 ." 

235 The next particular was about depopulations. A Commis- VIII. 
sion of Grace, to compound with some delinquents in that 
kind, was issued under the broad seal to some Lords and 
other persons of honour of the Council, of which I w r as one. 
One Mr. Talboys was called thither. And the charge about 
this was, that when he pleaded, that by statute 39 Eliz. z he 
might convert some to pasture, I should say, Do you plead 
law here ? Either abide the order, or take your trial at the 
Star-Chamber: and that he was fined 50/. 

In this particular, Mr. Talboys is single, and in his own 
cause; (111) but I was single at no sitting of that Commis 
sion : nor did I ever sit unless the Lord Privy Seal and Mr. 
Secretary Coke were present ; that we might have direction 
from their knowledge and experience. 

And for the words, (if spoken,) they were not to derogate 
from the law; but to show, that we sat not there as any 

1 [ took care of ... against me. on opposite page.] 

Prov. xvi. 14. iii. Append, p. 109.] 

[See Rush worth s Collections, vol. [39 Eliz. cap. ii.] 


Die judges of the law, but to offer his Majesty s grace to such as 

Secundo. J . A 

would accept it. 

As for the fine mentioned, we imposed none upon him or 
any other, but by the consent of the parties themselves. If 
any man thought he was not faulty, and would not accept of 
the favour showed him, we left him to the law. But the plain 
truth is, this gentleman, being tenant to the Dean and Chapter 
of Christ-Church in Oxford, offered them, as they conceived, 
great wrong in the land he held of them ; insomuch as l they 
feared other their tenants might follow his example, and 
therefore complained of him. And because I laid open his 
usage of his landlords before the Commissioners, he comes 
here to vent his spleen against me. " And tis observable, 
that in all the business of depopulations, in which so many 
appeared, no one complained, either against me or any other 
lord, but only this Talboys. Mr. Browne, when he pressed 
the sum of this charge against me, added, that at the Council- 
table I was for all illegal projects, as well as for these in- 
closures. But first, I was neither for this nor any other, either 
longer or otherwise than I understood them to be lawful. 


And secondly, I opposed there the business of salt and the 
base money ; and I alone took off that of the malt, and the 
brewing : and three gentlemen of Hertfordshire (which county 
was principally concerned in the case of the malt) came over 
to Lambeth to give me thanks for it 2 ." 

IX. Then was charged upon me the printing of books, which 
asserted the King s prerogative above law, &c. The instance 
was in Dr. CowelFs book, verbo, Rex a : that this book was 
decried by proclamation 13 ; that complaint was made to me 3 , 
that this book was printing in a close house, without licence 4 , 
and by Hodgkinson, who was my printer ; that I referred 

1 [ as interlined.] 

2 [ pressed the sum . . . thanks for it. on opposite page.] 

3 [ made to me originally written made to me of this. That I referred 
it to Sir ,To. Lambe, ] 4 [ without licence, in marg.] 

No such word there sure : it should King, it was called in by Proclamation, 

be Prserogativa Regis. W. S. A. C. March 26, 161f (Wood, F. 0. i. 289). 

b [Cowell s Interpreter ? was first From a paper preserved in Tanner s 

published in 1607 : it remained for a MSS., vol. Ixvii. p. 25, it appears that 

long time uncensured, but offence the edition referred to in the text was 

being afterwards taken at it for assert- called in by an order signed by Laud 

ing the unlimited prerogative of the and others, on October 8, 1638.] 


them to Sir John Lambe ; that they came to me again, and Die 
a third time, and I still continued my reference ; which Sir S< 
John Lambe slighting, the book came forth. The witnesses to 
this were Hunt and Walye c , if I mistook not their names 1 . 

1. For this book of Dr. Cowell s, I never knew of it till 
it was printed, or so far gone on in printing that I could not 
stay it : and the witnesses say, it was in a close house, and 
without licence / so neither I nor my chaplains could take 
notice of it. 

236 2, They say, they informed me of it, but name no time, 
but only the year 1638. But they confess I was then at 
Croydon : so being out of town (as were almost all the High 
Commissioners) I required Sir Jo. Lambe, who, being a High 
Commissioner, had in that business as much power as myself, 
to look to it carefully, that the book proceeded not ; or if it 
were already printed, that it came not forth. If Sir John 
slighted his own duty and my command (as themselves say), 
he is living, and may answer for himself; and I hope your 
Lps. will not put his neglect upon my account. 

3. As for Hodgkinson, he was never my printer J ; but 
Badger was the man whom I employed, as is well known to 
all the stationers. Nor was Hodgkinson ever employed by 
me in that kind or any other : upon just complaint, I turned 
him out of a place, but never put him into any : and there 
fore those terms which were put upon me, of my Hodgkin 
son/ and my Sir Jo. Lambe/ might have been spared. Sir 
John was indeed Dean 2 of the Arches, and I employed him, 
as other Archbishops did the Deans which were in their 
times ; otherwise no way mine : and Hodgkinson had his 
whole dependence on Sir Henry Martin, and was a mere 
stranger to me. t( And this answer I gave to Mr. Browne, 
when he summed up the charge. Nor could any danger be 
in the printing of that book to mislead any man : because it 
was generally made known by proclamation that it was a 

1 [ my printer ; originally written printer, as ] 

2 [ indeed Dean originally written indeed my Dean ] 

e [Walye was Clerk at Stationers Journals are Hunscot and Wally. 

Hall, mentioned several times by Joseph Hunscot was a principal printer 

Prynne in Cant. Doom.] of the day.] 

d [The names as given in the Lords 


Die book condemned, and in such particulars : but for other 
Secundo. 4.1,: X T_ _ t i_ r.-i i c 

X. The next charge was, That when Dr. Gill, Schoolmaster of 
Paul s School, in London f , was warned out by the Mercers 
(to the care of which Company that school some way belongs 8 ), 
upon Dr. Gill s petition to the King, there was a reference to 
some other lords and myself to hear the business. The 
charge is, that at this hearing I should say, the Mercers 
might not put out Dr. Gill without his Ordinary s knowledge ; 
and that upon mention made of an Act of Parliament, I 
should reply, I see nothing will down with you but Acts of 
Parliament ; no regard at all of the Canons of the Church : 
and that I should further add, That I would rescind all Acts 
which were against the Canons ; and that I hoped shortly to 
see the Canons and the King s prerogative of equal force with 
an Act of Parliament. 7 

To this I answered ; That if all this charge were true, yet 
this is but the single testimony of Samuel Bland 11 , an officer 
belonging to the Company of the Mercers, and no small 
stickler against Dr. Gill, whose aged reverend father had 
done that Company great service in that school for many 
years together *. 

The reference, he grants, was to me and others : so I 
neither thrust myself into the business, nor was alone in it. 

And as there is a canon of this Church, That no man may 
be allowed to teach school, but by the bishop of the diocese J ; 
so, a paritate rationis, it (112) stands good, they may not 
turn him out without the said 2 bishop s knowledge and appro- 

1 [ Nor could . . . useful. on opposite page,] 2 [ said interlined.] 

e [The book afterwards went through remitted. He was removed from the 

several editions; in 1672, 1684, 1701 school in 1640, which is the circum- 

(edited by White Kennet), and 1709 stance referred to in the text] 

(Wood, F. 0. i. 289).] * [They were appointed trustees. 

f [It appears from two letters of See Knight s Life of Colet, Append. 

Joseph Mede, quoted by Ant. Wood p. 335.] 

(Ath. Ox. iii. 43), that Alexander Gill h [He is called Matthew Bland in 

had been censured in the Star-Cham- Lords Journals.] 

ber, in Nov. 1628, for some offensive * [Alexander Gill, the elder, a scholar 

language against the King, and sen- of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, suc- 

tenced to be degraded, and to suffer ceeded Rich. Mulcaster (Bishop An- 

fme and corporal punishment ; but drewes s schoolmaster) at S. Paul s 

that on the intercession of Laud, then School, in 1608, and died Nov. 17, 

Bishop of London, the fine was miti- 1635. (Wood, Ath. Ox. ii. 597.)] 

gated, and the corporal punishment i Can. 77. 


bation. And tis expressed in another canon, f That if any Die 
schoolmaster offend in any of the premises (there spoken of) Secundo< 
he shall be admonished by his Ordinary ; and if he do not 
amend upon that his admonition, he shall then be suspended 
237 from teaching k : which, I think, makes the case plain, that 
the Mercers might not turn out Dr. Gill without so much as 
the knowledge of his Bishop. 

And for the words, that I saw nothing would down with 
them but an Act of Parliament, and that no regard was had 
to the Canons ; I humbly conceive there was no offence in 
the words. For though the superiority by far in this kingdom 
belongs to the Acts of Parliament, yet some regard doubtless 
is, or ought to be had, to the Canons of the Church. " And 
if nothing will down with men but Acts of Parliament, the 
government cannot be held up in many particulars." 

For the other words, God forgive this witness ; for I am 
well assured, I neither did nor could speak them. For is it 
so much as probable, that I should say, I would rescind all 
Acts that are against the Canons ? What power have I, or 
any particular man, to rescind Acts of Parliament ? Nor do 
I think any man that knows me, will believe I could be such 
a fool as to say, that I hoped shortly to see the Canons and 
the King s prerogative equal to Acts of Parliament; since 
I have lived to see (and that often) many Canons rejected, as 
contrary to the custom of the place ; as in choice of parish- 
clerks, and about 2 the reparation of some churches ; and the 
King s prerogative discussed and weighed by law : neither of 
which hath or can be done by any judges to an Act of Par 
liament. "That there is malice in this man against me 3 , 
appears plainly ; but upon what tis grounded, I cannot tell ; 
unless it be that in this business of Dr. Gill, and in some 
other about placing lecturers, (which in some cases this Com 
pany of the Mercers took on them to do l ,) I opposing it so 
far as law and canon would give me leave, crossed some way 
either his opinion in religion or his purse-profit. I was, 
I confess, so much moved at the unworthiness of this man s 

1 [ though interlined.] 2 [ about in marg.] 

3 [ That . . . me, on opposite page. Originally written, What the malice 
of this man is, ] 

k Can. 79. 

1 [See Accounts of Province for 1633, Works, vol. v. p. 321.] 
LAUD. VOL. iv. 


Die testimony, that I thought to bind this sin upon his soul ra , not 

to be forgiven him till he did publicly ask me forgiveness for 
this notorious public wrong done me. But, by God s good 
ness, I mastered myself; and I heartily desire God to give 
him a sense of this sin against me His poor servant, and 
forgive him." And if these words could possibly escape me, 
and be within the danger of that statute ; then to that 
statute, which requires my trial within six months, I refer 

XI. The eleventh charge of this day was the imprisonment of 
Mr. George Waker n , about a sermon of his, preached to 
prove (as he said) that tis sin to obey the greatest monarchs 
in things which are 1 against the command of God : that I had 
notes of his sermons for four or five years together, of pur 
pose to entrap him ; that I told his Majesty he was factious ; 
that Sir Dudly Carltoii writ to keep him close ; that in this 
affliction I protested to do him kindness, and yet did 

My answer was, That for the scope of his sermon, to obey 
God rather than man/ no man doubts but it ought to be so, 
when the commands are opposite. But his sermon was 
viewed, and many factious passages, and of high nature, found 
in it. And yet I did not tell the King he was factious, but 
that he was so complained of to me ; and this was openly at 
the Council-table. 

And whereas he speaks of notes of his sermons for divers 238 
years, with a purpose to entrap him ; all that he says is, that 
* he was told so/ but produces not by whom. And truly, 
I never had any such notes, nor ever used any such art 
against any man in my life. For his commitment, it was 
done by the Council-table ; and after, upon some carriage of 
his there, by the Court of Star- Chamber, not by me ; nor 
can that be imputed to me, which is done there by the major 

1 [ in things which are in margin ] 

m [Abp. Sancroft notes this passage, Evangelist, London, April 29, 1614. 

as though he considered it too severe.] In 1643, he was one of the Assembly 

n f. Walker. of Divines, and died in 1651. See 

[George Walker, termed by Wood more of him in Abp Laud s Accounts 

(F. 0. i. 399) "a learned person, an of his Province for the year 1635, 

excellent logician, orientalian, and (Works, vol. v. p. 332.)] 

divine," was admitted to S. John the [Clerk to the Council.] 


part, and I having no negative. And if Sir Dudly Carlton Die 
writ to keep him close at his brother s house, contrary to the 
Lds . order, let him answer it ; and if he supposes that was 
done by me, why is not Sir Dudly examined to try that 
truth ? As for the protestation which he says I made to his 
wife and his brother, that I complained not against him; it 
was no denial of my complaint made against him at the first, 
that I heard he was factious; but that after the time, in 
which I had seen the full testimony of grave ministers in 
London that he was not factious, I made no complaint after 
that, but did my best to free him. And the treason in these 
two charges is against the Company of the Mercers, and 
Mr. Walter. 

(113) The next charge was 1 , that Dr. ManwaringP having XII. 
been censured by the Lords in Parliament for a sermon of 
his against the liberty and propriety of the subject, was yet 
after this preferred by me, in contempt of the Parliament- 
censure, both to the deanery of Worcester ( * and the bishopric 
of St. David s 1 ; and my own Diary witnesses that I was 
complained of in Parliament for it ; and that yet after this 
I did consecrate him bishop. 

1, To this I answered, that he was not preferred by me to 
either of these; and therefore, that 2 could not be done in 
contempt of the Parliament-censure, which was not done at 
all. For as for St. David s, tis confessed Secretary Winde- 
bank signified the King s pleasure, not I. And whereas it 
was added, that this was by my means ; that is only said, but 
not proved. And- for Worcester, there is no proof but the 
Docket-book : now, my Lords, tis well known in Court that 
the Docket doth but signify the King s pleasure for such a 
bill to be drawn ; it never mentions who procured the pre 
ferment : so that the Docket can be no proof at all against 
me ; and other there s none. 

2. For the sermon, tis true, I was complained of in Par 
liament, that I had been the cause of licensing it to the 

1 [ was, interlined.] 2 [ that interlined.] 

p [See vol. iii. p. 207, notes h .] May, seems to be incorrect.] 
i [Nominated Oct. 28, 1633. (Ry- r [The Conge" d elire was issued Jan. 
mer, Feed. VIII. iv. 67.) The statement 4, 1635 ; he was elected Jan. 19 ; con- 
in Le Neve that he was nominated in firmed Feb. 26 ; consecrated Feb. 28.] 

G 2 


Die press ; and tis as true, that upon that complaint I was nar~ 

>ecundo. row ]y sifted ; and an honourable Ld. now present, and the 
L. Bishop of Lincoln 9 , were sent to Bishop Mountain*, who 
licensed the sermon, to examine and see whether any warrant 
had come from me, or any message. But when nothing 
appeared, I was acquitted in open Parliament; "to some 
body s no small grief. God forgive them, and their malice 
against me; for, to my knowledge, my ruin was then thirsted 
for. And, as I answered Mr. Brown s summary charge, when 
he pressed this against me, could this have been proved, I 
had been undone long since ; the work had not been now to 
be done 1 ." 

That he was after consecrated by me u is true likewise ; 
and I hope tis not expected I should ruin myself, and 239 
fall into a Pramunire, by refusing the King s royal assent v ; 
and this for fear lest it might be thought I procured his 
preferment. But the truth is, his Majesty commanded me 
to put him in mind of him when preferments fell, and I did 
so : but withal I told his Majesty 2 of his censure, and that 
I feared ill construction would be made of it. 

To this it was replied, That I might have refused to conse 
crate, the cause why being sufficient, and justifiable in Par 
liament, and excepted in that law. " But how sufficient 
soever that cause 3 may be in Parliament, if I had been in a 
Praemunire therewhile, and lost my liberty and all that I had 
beside, for disobeying the royal assent, I believe I should 
have had but cold comfort when the next Parliament had 
been summoned ; no exception against the man being known 
to me, either for life or learning, but only this censure : nor 
is there any exception which the Archbishop is by that law 
allowed to make, if my book be truly printed 4 ." 
XIII. Then followed the charge of Dr. Heylin s book against Mr. 
Burton x ; out of which it was urged, that an unlimited power 

charge . . . done. on opposite page.] 

told his Majesty originally written put his Majesty in mind ] 

that cause originally written that cause, or any ] 

any exception . . . printed. on opposite page.] 

8 [John Williams.! p. 226.] 

1 [George Mountain, or Montaigne, v 25 lien. VIII. c. 20, ult. 
then Bishop of London.] * [Henry Barton, of S.Matthew, 

u [See Diary, Feb. 28, 1635, vol. iii. Friday-street.] 


was pressed very far; and out of p. 40 ?, that a way was Die 
found to make the subject free, and the king a subject; that Sccundo - 
this man was preferred by me ; that Dr. Heylin confessed to 
a Committee that I commanded him to answer Mr. Burton s 
book ; and that my chaplain, Dr. Braye z , licensed it. 

I answered as follows : I did not prefer Dr. Heylin to the 
King s service ; it was the E. of Danby, who had taken 
honourable care of him before in the University. His pre 
ferments I did not procure; for it appears by what hath been 
urged against me,, that the Ld. Viscount Dorchester a pro 
cured him his parsonage b , and Mr. Secretary Coke c his 
prebend in Westminster d . 

For his answer to the Committee, that I commanded him 
to write against Burton, it was an ingenuous and a true 
answer, and became him and his calling well ; for I did so. 
" And neither I in commanding, nor he in obeying, did other 
than what we had good precedent for in the primitive Church 
of Christ. For when some monks had troubled the Church at 
Carthage 1 , but not with half that danger which Mr. Burton s 
book threatened to this, Aurelius, then bishop, commanded 
St. Aug. to write against it; and he did so e . His words are, 
Aurelius scribere jussit, et feci/ 3 But though I did, as by 
my place I might, command him to write and answer, yet I 
did neither command nor advise him to insert anything un 
sound or unfit. If any such thing be found in it, he must 
answer for himself, and the licenser for himself. For as for 

1 [ at Carthage/ in marg. Originally written, at Hippo, also in marg.] 

y Heylin cont. Burton, [i.e. A " [Dudley Carlcton, created Vis- 

briefe and moderate Answer to the count, Dorchester July 25, 1628.] 

seditious and scandalous Challenges h [This was to the Rectory of He- 

of Henry Burton, late of Friday- mingford, in Hunts. The patronage 

streete. l cap. ii. p. 40. [Lond. 1637.] was disputed by Williams, Bp. of Lin- 

z [William Bray was originally of coin, and Heylin did not enjoy the 

the Puritan party. He was afterwards benefice. See Life, prefixed to Iley- 

patronized by Laud, and appointed lin s Historical Tracts.] 

Rector of S. Ethelburga, May 5, c [Sir John Coke ] 

1632; Preb. of Mapesbury, in S. Paul s d [He was appointed to the sixth 

Ch., June 12, 1632 ; Vicar of S. Mar- stall, vacant by the death of George 

tin s-in-the-Fields, March 2, 1632; and Darrell, Nov. 4, 1631, and installed 

Prebendary of the first stall in Can- Nov. 6. (Rymer, Feed. VIII. iii. 224, 

terbury. He was censured by the and Le IS eve.)] 

Parliament for licensing Pockling- e [S.] Aug. [lib.] ii. Retract, c. 21. 

ton s Sermons, and enjoined to preach [Op., torn. i. col. 97. C. The work re- 

a recantation sermon at S. Margaret s, ferred to is the treatise " De Opere 

Westminster.] Monachorum."] 


Die licensing of books, I held the same course which all my prede- 

Secundo. 111 11- 

cessors had done ; and when any chaplain came new into my 

house, I gave him a strict charge in that particular. And in all 
my predecessors times, the chaplains suffered for faults com 
mitted, and not their lords ; though now all is heaped on me. 

"As for the particular words urged out of Dr. Heylin s book, 
p. 40, there is neither expression by them, nor intention in 
them, against either the law or any lawful proceedings ; but 
they are directed to Mr. Burton and his doctrine only. The 
words are, You have found out a way (not the law, but 
you, Mr. Burton) to make the subject free, and the King a 240 
subject : whereas, it would well have beseemed Mr. Burton 
to have carried his pen even, at the least, and left the King 
his freedom, as well as the subject his V 

XIV. (114) From this they proceeded to another charge, which 
was, that I preferred chaplains to be about the King and the 
Prince, which were disaffected to the public welfare of the 
kingdom. The instance was in Dr. Dove l ; and a passage read 
out of his book against Mr. Burton ; and it was added, that 
the declaring of such disaffection was the best inducement or 
bribe to procure them preferment. 

To this I then said, and tis true, I did never knowingly 
prefer any chaplain to the King or Prince, that was ill-affected 
to the public. And for Dr. Dove, if he uttered by tongue or 
by pen any Such wild speech concerning any members of the 
honourable House of Commons, as is urged, thereby to show 
his disaffection to the public 2 , he is living, and I humbly 
desire he may answer it. But whereas it was said, that this 
was the best inducement or bribe to get preferment/ this 
might have been spared, had it so pleased the gentleman 
which spake it : but I know my condition, and where I am, 
and will not lose my patience for language. 

1 [ -As for the particular . . . his. on opposite page.] 

2 [ thereby . . . public, in margin.] 

[Christopher Dowe, the person of a libellous pamphlet of Henry Bur- 
here referred to, was of Christ s Col- ton s, intituled, An Apologie of an 
lege, Cambridge, incorporated at Ox- Appeal, &c. Lond. 1637." He was 
ford July 10, 1621. (Wood, F. 0. i. appointed Hector of All Saints, Has- 
399.) The title of his book was, tings, May 4, 1636. (Bymer, Feed. IX. 
" Innovations unjustly charged upon ii. 87.) His name is not found in 
the present Church and State ; or, an Walker s Sufferings, so that he pro- 
Answer to the most material passages bably died shortly after this time.] 


* And whereas His urged, that after this he was named by Die 
me to be a chaplain to the Prince his highness, the thing was Secundo - 
thus. His Majesty had suit made to him, that the Prince 
might have sermons in his own chapel for his family. Here 
upon his Majesty, approving the motion, commanded me to 
think upon the names of some fit men for that service. I did 
so : but before anything was done, I acquainted the Right 
Honourable the Ld. Chamberlain, that then was, with it. 
My Ld. knew most of the men, and approved the note, and 
delivered it to his secretary, Mr. Oldsworth, to swear them. 
This was the fact ; and at this time, when I put Dr. Dove s 
name into the list, I did not know of any such passage in his 
book, nor, indeed, ever heard of it till now. For I had not 
read his book, but here and there by snatches. 

I am now come (and tis time) to the last particular of this XV. 
day; and this charge was, the giving of subsidies to the 
King in the Convocation, without consent in Parliament; 
that the penalties for not paying were strict, and without 
appeal, as appears in the Act&; where it is further said, that 
f we do this according to the duty which by Scripture we are 
bound unto ; which reflects upon the liberties of Parliaments 
in that behalf. But it ^Yas added, they would not meddle 
now with the late Canons for anything else, till they came to 
their due place. 

1. My answer to thte was: That this was 1 not my single 
act, but the act of the whole Convocation, and could not be 
appliable to me only. 

2. That this grant was no other, nor in any other way, 
mutatis mutandis, than was granted to Queen Elizabeth in 
Archbishop Whitgift s time. This grant was also put in 
execution, as appeared by the originals which we followed. 
These originals (among many other records) were commanded 

241 away by the honourable House of Commons, and where they 
now are I know not; but for want of them, my defence 
cannot be so full. 

3. For the circumstances, as that the penalties are without 
appeal/ and the like, tis usual in all such grants. And that 

1 [ was interlined.] 

[See a copy of the Act in Nalson s Collection, vol. i. pp. 533537.] 


Die we did it according to our duty and the rules of Scripture/ 

ecundo. we conce i ve( j was a fitting expression for ourselves, and men 
of our calling ] , without giving law to others, or any intention 
to violate the law in the least. For thus, I humbly conceive, 
lies the mutual relation between the King and his people, by 
rules of conscience. The subjects are to supply a full and 
honourable maintenance to the King : and the King (when ne 
cessities call upon him) is to ask of his people in such a way as 
is, perpacta, by law and covenant agreed upon between them, 
which in this kingdom is by Parliament ; yet the clergy ever 
granting their own at all times. And that this was my judg 
ment long before this, appears by a sermon of mine, appointed 
to be preached at the opening of the Parliament, in the year 
1625 h . My words are, these : If you would have indeed a 
flourishing both State and Church, the King must trust and 
endear his people, and the people must honour, obey, and 
support their King/ &c. This, I hope, is far enough from 
derogating from any law; and if I should privately have 
spoken anything to him contrary to this, which I had both 
preached and printed, how could his Majesty have trusted me 
in anything ? 

1 [ and men of our calling/ in marg.] 

My sermon in Psal. Ixxv. 2, 3, p, 14. [Works, vol. i. p. 99.] 


242 CAP. XXIV. 

THIS brought this tedious day to an end. And I x had an Die Tertio. 
order the same day to appear again on Saturday, March 16, 
1643, with a note also from the Committee which were to 
charge me, that they meant then to proceed upon part of the 
second additional Article, (115) and upon the third original, 
and the third and fifth additional Articles. The second 
additional Article is written down before ; and here follow 
the rest now mentioned, to be next proceeded upon. 

3. The third original is, He hath by letters, messages, 
threats, promises, and divers other ivays, to judges and 
other ministers of justice, interrupted and perverted, 
and at other times, by the means aforesaid, hath endea 
voured to interrupt and pervert the course of justice in his 
Majesty s courts at Westminster, and other courts, to 
the subversion of the laws of this kingdom; whereby 
sundry of his Majesty s subjects have been stopped in 
their just suits, and deprived of their lawful rights, and 
subjected to his tyrannical will, to their utter ruin and 

The third and fifth additional follow : 

3. That the said Archbishop, to advance the Canons of the 
Church and power ecclesiastical above the law of the land, 
and to pervert and hinder the course of justice, hath at 
divers times within the said time, by his letters, and other 
undue means and solicitations used to judges, opposed and 
stopped the granting of his Majesty s writs of 2 prohibi 
tion, where the same ought to have been granted for stay 
of proceedings in the ecclesiastical court, whereby justice 
hath been delayed and hindered, and the judges diverted 
from doing their duties. 

1 [ I interlined.] 2 [ his Majesty s writs of in margin.] 


Die Tertio. 5. That the said Archbishop, about eight years last past, 
being then also a privy-counsellor to his Majesty, for the 
end and purpose aforesaid, caused Sir John Corbet, of 
Stoke, in the county of Salop, Baronet, then a justice of 
peace of the said county l , to be committed to the prison 
of the Fleet, where he continued prisoner for the space of 
half a year or more, for no other cause but for calling for 
the Petition of Right, and causing it to be read at the 
sessions of the peace for that county, upon a just and 
necessary occasion. And during the time of his said 
imprisonment, the said Archbishop, without any colour of 
right, by a writing under the seal of his archbishopric, 
granted away parcel of the glebe-land of the church oj 
Adder ly in the said county, whereof the said Sir Jo. 
Corbet was then patron, unto Robert, Viscount Kilmurry, 
without the consent of the said Sir John, or the then 
incumbent of the said church ; which said Viscount Kil 
murry built a chapel upon the said parcel of glebe-land, 
to the great prejudice of the said Sir John Corbet, which 
hath caused great suits and dissensions* between them. 
And whereas the said Sir John Corbet had a judgment #43 
against Sir James Stonehouse, Knight, in an action 2 of 
waste in his Majesty s Court of Common Pleas at West 
minster, which was afterwards affirmed in a writ of error 
in the King s Bench, and execution thereupon awarded; 
yet the said Sir John, by means of the said Archbishop, 
could not have the effect thereof, but was committed to 
prison by the said Archbishop and others at the Council- 
table, until he had submitted himself unto the order of 
the said Table, whereby he lost the benefit of the said 
judgment and execution. 


Saturday, In the interim, between the 13th and this 16th of March, 
I64f. upon some strict charge to look to the Tower, my solicitor 

1 [< of the said county, in margin.] 

2 [The word looks like Etion/ probably an abbreviation for Ejection. ] 

contentions Kushw. 


was not suffered to come in to me. Whereupon, so soon as Die Tertio. 
I was settled at the bar, before the evidence began to be 
opened, I spake to the Lords as follows : 

te My Lds., I stand not here to complain of anything, or 
any man, but only am enforced to acquaint your Lps. with 
my sad condition. Your Lps. have appointed my secretary 
to be my solici(116)tor, and given him leave to assist me in 
the turning of my papers, and to warn in such witnesses, and 
to fetch me the copies of such records, as I shall have occasion 
to use. And I humbly desire your Lps. to consider, that 
myself being imprisoned, and so utterly disenabled to do 
these things myself, it will be absolutely impossible for me to 
make any defence, if my solicitor be denied to come to me, 
as now he is." This was granted, and the hearing adjourned 
till Monday following b ; and I humbly thanked their Lord 
ships for it. 

b Here the relation is imperfect, might come to him, and in the mean- 
It seems he moved that his solicitor time the hearing put off. W. S. A.C. 


CAP. XXV. 244 


Die Tertio THE fourth day of my hearing was Monday,, March 18, and 
Marches was on ^ m y answer to tue third day s charge, and the only 
Monday, time in which I was not put to answer the same day 1 . The 
first 2 charge of this day 3 was about S. Paul s. And first out 
of my Diary, (where I confess it one of my projects to repair 
that ancient fabric 8 ;) and three strict orders of the Lords of 
the Council for the demolishing of the houses built about 
that church. One 4 was Novemb. 21, 1634. The demolishing 
of the houses commanded by this before Jan. 6 for one, and 
for the rest by after midsummer 5 . Another was Mar. 26, 
1631 ; a committee, with power to compound with the 
tenants, and with order to pull down if they would not com 
pound 6 . The third was Mar. 2, 1631, which gives power to 
the sheriffs to pull down, if obedience be not yielded 7 . 

To this I confess I did, when I came first to be Bishop of 
London, project the repair of that ancient and famous 
cathedral of S. Paul, ready to sink into its own ruins. And 
to this I held myself bound in general, as bishop of the place, 

1 (" The fourth . . . same day. This sentence is written in margin of p. 115 
of MS.] 

2 [After the words, then the business proceeded/ which then follow in the 
MS., the following passage is erased, The fii st charge of these two days (for 
in my notes I have slipped Avhere the fourth day s charge began, and therefore 
I will go on with the charge of both these days together, because to the utter 
most of my power I will not be found faulty so much as in a circumstance) 
I say the first, &c. (as in text.)] 

3 [ of this day in margin.] * [ One originally written The first ] 

5 [The following is the account given in a passage now erased : The next 
was Mar. 2 ; a committee ordered to compound with the several tenants, and 
they not to have the materials, unless on the day appointed. The third was Mar. 
26, 1631, directed to the sheriffs, to demolish the houses of such as would not 
obey, nor take composition by the days appointed. ] 

6 [ a committee . . . compound. on opposite page.] 

7 [ gives power . . . yielded. on opposite page.] 

a [See vol. Hi. p. 253.] 


and in particular for the body of the church, the repair of Die Tertio 
which is by the local statutes laid upon the bishop. And e 
the bishop was well able to do it, while he enjoyed those 
lands which he had when that burthen was laid upon him. 
" But what sacrilegious hands despoiled that bishopric of 
them, tis to 1 no purpose to tellV 

And truly, my Lds., since I am in this present condition, 
I humbly and heartily thank God, that S. Paul s comes into 
my sufferings, and that God is pleased to think me worthy 
to suffer either for it or with it any way ; though I confess 
I little thought to meet that here, or, as a charge, anywhere 
else. And so God be pleased (as I hope in Christ He will) to 
pardon my other sins, I hope I shall be able (human frailties 
always set aside) to give an easy account for this. But 
whereas I said, the repair of St. Paul s was a strange piece of 
treason ; and they presently replied, that they did not charge 
the repair upon me, but the l manner of doing it, by demo 
lishing of men s houses ; to that I answered as follows ; 
with this first, that the work hath cost me above one thousand 
and two hundred pounds out of my own purse, besides all my 
care and pains, and now this heavy charge to boot ; no one 
man offering to prove, that I have misspent, or diverted to 
other use, any one penny given to that work, or that I have 
done anything about it without the knowledge, approbation, 
and order of his Majesty, or the Lords of the Council, or 

To the particulars then. For the three orders taken out 
of the Council-books, I shall not need to repeat them. But 
what is the mystery, that these orders are reckoned backward, 
the last first ? Is it to aggravate, as if it rose by steps ? 
245 That cannot well be ; because the first order is the sourest, if 
I conceive it right. Besides, here was real composition 
allotted for them, and that by a Committee named by the 
Lords, not by me. And I think it was very real ; for it cost 
eight or nine thousand pounds (as appears upon the accounts ) 

1 [ to interlined.] 

b [Bp. Eidley had exchanged many benefit of the See.] 

of the lands of the See of London with c [A statement of the receipts and 

Edw. VI. (Strype, Memorials, II. i. payments is given in Dugdale s S. 

339 ;) but Strype says (p. 341), to the Paul s.] 


Die Tertio merely to take down the houses (which had no right to stand 
there), before we could come at the church to repair it. 

And if anything should be amiss in any of these (which is 
more than I either know or believe) ; they were the Council s 
orders, not mine. And shall that be urged as treason against 
me, which is not imputed to them so much as a misde 
meanour ? Besides, the Lords of the Council are in the ancient 
constitution of this kingdom one body; and whatsoever the 
major part of them concludes, is reputed the act of the whole, 
not any one man s. And this I must often inculcate, because 
I see such public acts like to be heaped upon my particular. 

1. The first witness about this business of St. Paul s is 
Mich. Burton ! , and tis charged that his house was pulled 
down in King (117) James s time; that he was promised 
relief, but had none : that hereupon he got a reference from 
his Majesty that now is, and came with it to the Council, 
and was referred to the Committee. That Sir Hen. Martin 
told him, that the Archbishop was his hindrance. That he 
resorted to me, and that I bid him go to King James for his 

To this my answer was, That this house, which he says was 
his, was (as is confessed by himself) taken down in King 
James s time, when an attempt was made about the repair of 
this cathedral, but nothing done 2 . If he desired satisfaction, 
he was to seek it of them who took down his house, not of 
me. If his Majesty that now is gave him a reference, he was 
by the Lords of the Council, or by me (if to me it were 
referred), to be sent to the Sub-Committee, because satisfac 
tion for each house was to be ordered by them. Nor had 
I any reason to take it on my care, which was done so long 
before. He says, that Sir H. Martin told him, that I hindered 
him : but that s no proof that Sir H. Martin told him so ; 
for tis but his report of Sir H. Martin s speech : and I hope, 
Sir Henry neither did, nor would do me such apparent wrong. 
He was the third man to whom I brake my intentions touch 
ing the repair, and the difficulties which I foresaw I was to 
meet with : and he gave me all encouragement. And it may 
be, when nothing would satisfy the eager old man, I might 

1 [After Burton, single and in erased.] 

2 [" when . . . done. in margin.] 


bid him go to King James for recompense ; but tis more than Die Tertlo 
I remember if I did so. And this man is single, and in his et ^ uarto< 
own case ; and where lies the treason that is in it ? 

Besides, least consideration was clue to this house : for, not 
many years before the demolishing of it, it was built at the 
west end of St. Paul s for a lottery ; (it was said to be the 
house of one Wheatly ;) and after the lottery ended, finished 
up into a dwelling-house, to the great annoyance of that 
church : the bishop, and dean, and chapter being asleep while 
it was done. 

2. The next charge about St. Paul s was witnessed by Mary 
246 Berry d , that her husband was fain to set up his trade else 
where, and that every man reported, the Bishop was the 
cause of it. 

Her husband was forced by this remove to set up his trade 
elsewhere ; so she says : and perhaps in a better place, and 
with satisfaction sufficient to make him a better stock : 
where s the wrong ? Beside, she is single, and in her own 
cause, and no proof, but that every man reported the Bishop 
was the means to remove him. And it is observable, that in 
King James his time, when the commission issued out for 
the demolishing of these very houses, the work was highly 
applauded; and yet no care taken for satisfaction of any 
private man s interest : now that great care hath been taken, 
and great sums of money expended about it, yet I must be a 
traitor, and no less, for doing it. " This makes me think, 
some party of men were heartily angry at the repair itself; 
though for very shame it be turned off upon the demolishing 
of the houses." 

3. GDhe next that came in, was Tho. Wheeler : he says that 
his house was pulled down by the Committee, by my direc 
tion, above eleven years ago : and that word was brought him 
of it. 

His house was pulled down ; but himself confesses it was 
by the Committee. It was, he says, above eleven years ago, 
and the time limited in that Article is six e years. He says, 
that word was brought him, that I was the cause, or gave the 
direction. Word was brought him ; but he names not by 

d [ Bury/ Lords Journals.] 

e sixteen, vide. [But see Article ii. as given above, p. 69.] 


Die Tertio whom, nor from whom ] ; so all this proof is a single hearsay 
of he knows not whom : whereas I had the Broad Seal of 
England for all that was done. It was replied here, That for 
demolishing of these houses the King s Commission f was no 
full and legal warrant ; I should have procured authority 
from Parliament. I replied to this interruption, That houses 
more remote from the church of St. Paul s were pulled down 
by the King s Commission only in K. Ed. III. time ; and 
humbly desired a salvo might be entered for me, till I might 
bring the record % which was granted. 

4. The last instance for this charge of St. PauFs, was the 
house of W. Wakern h ; who witnessed, that he had a hundred 
pound recompense for his house ; but then was after fined in 
the High-Commission Court 100/. for profanation, of which 
he paid 30/. 

To this I gave this answer ; That his charge is true ; and 
that after he had received 100/. composition, the cry of the 
profanation brought him into the High-Commission. It was 
thus : the skulls of dead men (perhaps better than himself) 
were tumbled out of their graves into his draught, and part 
of the foundation of the church (as appeared in the taking 
down of his house) was broken, or pared away, to make room 
for the uncleanness to pass into the vault : arid surely were 
I to sit again in the High-Commission, I should give my vote 
to censure this profa(118)nation. But himself confesses, he 
paid but thirty pound of it, which was too little for such an 
offence. And besides, my Lords, this was the act of the 
High- Commission, and cannot be charged singly upon me. 

And I cannot forbear to add thus much more, That the 247 
bishop, and dean, and chapter, whoever they were, did ill to 
give way to these buildings, and to increase their rents by a 
sacrilegious revenue : no law that I know giving way to build 
upon consecrated ground, as that churchyard is. But how- 

- 1 [ nor from whom ; in margin.] 

f [See the Special Commission for perhaps, it will not be necessary to 

repairing S. Paul s Cathedral, in print the whole patent ; but if it be, 

Rymer, Feed. VIII. iii. 172 seq.] I have a copy of it. W. S. A. C. 

e See this record twice referred to This came not to my hands. H.W. 

afterwards. In the latter place the h [ Wathon, Lords Journals.] 
useful words of it are recited. So that, 


soever, the present l tenants being not in dolo, I ever thought Die Tertio 
fit they should have recompense for their estates, and they et Q uarto - 
had it. 

The next charge was about the shops of the Goldsmiths II. 
in Cheapside and Lombard-street. An order was made at 
the Council-table, Novemb. 12, 1634, That within six months 
the Goldsmiths should provide themselves shops there, and 
nowhere else, till all those shops were furnished : and this 
under a penalty, and to give bond. 

These two were the ancient places for Goldsmiths only* 
time out of mind : and it was thought fit by the Lords, for 
the beauty of the place, and the honour of the city, to have 
these places furnished as they were wont, and not to have 
other trades mixed among them. Beside, it concerned all 
men s safety : for if any plate were stolen, the inquiry after 
it might be made with more ease and speed : whereas if the 
goldsmiths might dwell here and there, and keep their shops 
in every by-place of the city, stolen plate might easily be 
made off, and never heard of. But howsoever, if in this 
order there were anything amiss, it was the order of the 
Council-table, not mine : and far enough off from treason, as 
I conceive. 

1. Upon this charge there were two instances. The first is 
Mr. Bartley *, who said, his house was taken from him, by 
order to the Lord Mayor, 1637 ; that my hand was to the 
order ; that he was imprisoned six months, and recovered 
6001. damages of Sir Edw. Bromfield ; that after this he was 
committed to Flamsted, a messenger belonging to the High- 
Commission, about Dr. Bastwick s and Mr. Burton s books; 
that after this he was sent for to the Council, and there heard 
my voice only ; that when he desired some help, Sir Tho. 
Ailsbury s k man told him, he were as good take a bear by the 
tooth : that all this was for his entertaining a man that came 
out of Scotland ; and lastly, that Dr. Haywood, my chaplain, 
had licensed a popish book l . 

1 [ present in margin.] 

1 [ John Bartlett, Lords Journals.] to Breda, where he died in 1651. His 

k [Sir Thomas Ailesbury, Master of daughter Frances was the wife of Ed. 

the Eequests, and Master of the Mint. Hyde, afterwards Earl of Clarendon. 

He adhered to the cause of the King, (Wood, F. 0. i. 305.)] 

and retired first to Antwerp, and then l [William Haywood had licensed 



Die Tertio To which I gave this answer : That if the Lord Mayor put 
et Quarto. ^ m ^ Q ^ ^ house by order from the Lords, (being a sta 
tioner among the goldsmiths,) then it was not done by me : 
and though my hand were to the order, yet riot mine alone; 
and I hope my hand there subscribed no more treason than 
other lords hands did : and if he did recover 600/. against 
Sir Edw. Bromfield, who, I think, was the Lord Mayor spoken 
of, surely he was a gainer by the business. And whereas he 
says, he was after seized again, and committed to Flamsted 
about the books named : if he were (as was informed) a great 
vender of those, and such like books, less could not be done 
to him, than to call him to answer. He says further, that 
he was sent for to the Council-table, and there he heard my 
voice only against him. It may be so, and without all fault 
of mine : for that heavy office was usually put upon me and 
the Lord Keeper, to deliver the sense of the Board to such as 
were called thither, and examined there : and by this means, 248 
if any sour or displeasing sentence passed (how just soever, it 
mattered not), it was taken as our own, and the envy of it fell 
on us. And that this was so, many lords here present know 
well. He adds what Sir Thomas Ailsbury s man said 1 , 
when he would have petitioned again : but since Mr. Bartley 
is single here, and in his own cause, why doth he rest upon 
a hearsay of Sir Thomas Ailsbury s man ? Why was not this 
man examined to make out the proof ? And if this man did 
so far abuse me, as to speak such words of me, shall I be 
abused first, and then have that abuse made a charge ? That 
he was troubled thus for a Scotchman s coming to him, is 
nothing so, nor is any proof offered 2 : though then the 
troubles were begun in Scotland ; and therefore if this had 
any relation to that business, I pleaded again the Act of 
Oblivion. For that of Dr. Haywood, I shall give my answer 
in a more proper place; for tis objected again. 

2. The second instance was in Mr. Manning s m case. He 
speaks also of the order of the Council, Novemb. 12, 1634. 

1 [ what . . . said/ in margin. Originally written, adds, that ] 

2 [ nor . . . offered : in margin.] 

Sales Introduction to a Devout Life, m [ Francis Manning, Lords Jour- 
which was afterwards called in by nals.J 
proclamation, of which more below.] 


That the Goldsmiths in their book made an order upon it , Die Tertio 
June 1 5, 1635, that they which obey not, should be suspended, et Quarto> 
(I think tis meant, from use of their 2 trade ;) that when 
some entreated them to obedience, I should say, This Board 
is not (119) so weak, but that it can command; or to that 

For the Council s order, it was theirs, not mine. For the 
order which the Company of Goldsmiths made upon it, it 
was their own act, I had nothing to do with it. For the 
words, if I did speak them (which is more than I remember), 
he is single that swears them, and in his own cause. But, 
my Lords, I must needs say, whether I spake it then, or not, 
most true it is, that the Council-table is very weak indeed, 
if it cannot command in things of decency, and for safety of 
the subject, and where there is no law to the contrary. And 
this was then my answer. 

The third charge of this day was, that I forced men to III. 
lend money to the Church of St. Paul s : and Mrs. Moore 
was called upon. But this was deserted. 

The next charge was concerning a long and tedious suit IV. 
between Rich and Poole, about the parsonage of North- 
Cerny in Gloucestershire; that Rich was turned out after 
three years possession, by a reference procured by Poole to 
the Lord Keeper Coventry and myself; and that I did in a 
manner act the whole business at the reference ; that letters 
were sent from the Council to Sir Wi. Masters, one of the 
patrons, to see Poole instituted, and to imprison Rich if he 
refused obedience : that after, by the Ld. Marshal s procure 
ment, there was another reference obtained to thirteen lords ; 
who awarded for Rich. 

I was never more weary of any business in my life, than 
I was of this reference : and I was so far from acting the 
whole business, as that I did nothing, but as the Ld. Keeper 
directed ; the cause was so entangled with Quare impedits, 
and many other businesses of law. Our judgments upon full 
hearing went with Poole, and we certified accordingly : and 
249 upon this (it may be) the letters mentioned were sent down 
for Poole. And if the Ld. Keeper that now is, then his 

1 [ upon it,, originally upon it, that ] 2 [ their orig. his ] 

IT 2 


DieTertio Majesty s Solicitor n , could not, or durst not meddle, but gave 
it Quarto. ^^^ n | g f QQ ^ as was f ar th c r urged), his Lp. is living to tell the 
cause himself; for here was none set down, though it were 
urged, as if he did it because I was a referee : and in the 
meantime this is but a bare report concerning him *. If the 
thirteen lords, to whom it was after referred, were of another 
opinion, that was nothing to us, who without any touch of 
corruption, did as our knowledge and conscience guided us. 
And, my Lords, it seems this title was very doubtful; for 
after all this, it came into this Parliament, was referred to a 
Committee, where Mr. Rich was very willing to compound 
the business. " And well he might ; for I was since certified 
by a gentleman, a lawyer, that understood well, and was at 
the hearing of that cause, that it was one of the foulest 
causes on Rich s side, that ever he heard. And out of this 
I took the sum of my answer, which I gave to Mr. Browne, 
when he summed up my charge V 

The witnesses to this charge were Mr. Rich his brother, 
and my good friend Mr. Talboys P. But this latter witnesses 
nothing but that he heard me say, that Poole s behaviour 
was unfit ; so there I checked the one party : and that upon 
some words given me by Rich, I should say, Do you throw 
dirt in my face ? And why might I not ask this question, if 
his words deserved it ? So upon the matter, here is Rich 
single in his brother s case; and nothing throughout that 
looks like treason. 

Here I had a snap given me, that I slighted the evidence, 
whereas they (as twas said) did not urge these particulars 
as treason, but as things tending to the violation of law, and 
should be found to make treason in the result. " The truth 
is, I did then think within myself, that such evidence might 
very well be slighted in an accusation of treason. But I 
thought better to forbear ; and so, in my continued patience, 
expected the next charge." 
V. Which was, Mr. Foxlie s <i imprisonment about Popish 

concerning him. originally of him. ] 
And out . . . charge. on opposite page.] 

n [Sir Edw. Littleton.] in Lords Journals.] 
[ Edward Rich/ Lords Journals.] 1 [This person was Thomas Foxty, 

p P. 110 [of orig. MS. See above, at one time Lecturer of S. Martin s-in- 

p. 77. The name is Richard Talbois, the-Pields. See a detailed account of 


books l . That he was tendered the oath ex qfficio ; then Die Tertio 
brought before the Council, and imprisoned again by a warrant et Q uarto - 
under my hand and others ; and my hand first to the warrant ; 
his wife not suffered to come to him till he was sick ; that 
the chief cause of all this was the impropriations, because 
he desired to name the men for the feoffment. 

My Lords, this man confesses he was called in question 
about Popish books; but expressing no more, I cannot tell 
what to make of it 2 ; nor can I tell how to accuse him of 
Popish books. " For I cannot tell which is least, his under 
standing of them, or his love to them." And for tendering 
him the oath ex qfficio, that was the usual proceeding in that 
Court 3 . When he was brought before the Lords of the 
Council, he says the warrant for his imprisonment was under 
my hand and others / This was according to course : so the 
commitment of him was by the Lords, not by me. But my 
hand was first ; so was it in all things else, to which I was to 
set it. (120) And the restraint of his wife 4 from coming to 
him, was by the same order of the Lords : and upon her 
petition, when her husband was sick, both of them confess 
she had admittance. But whereas he says, the chief cause of 
250 his commitment was the feoffment, he is much mistaken : 
himself says before, it was about Popish books. This I am 
sure of, the feoffment was not so much as mentioned against 
him : though he freely confesses, that he got twelve men to 
undertake that feoffment, which was a great deal more power 
than he could take to himself by law. And his wife speaks 
not one word to the cause of his imprisonment. So he is 
single, and in his own cause; and no treason, unless it be 
against Mr. Foxlye. 

The next charge of this day, was Mr. Vassall s imprison- VI. 
ment r : and to save repetition, I shall weave all the circum 
stances of aggravation and my answer together. 

1 [Orig. written books. His ] 

2 [Orig. of it. For I cannot ] 

3 [* And for ... Court. in margin.] 4 [Orig. wife was by ] 

the proceedings respecting him, re- for refusing to pay the Tonnage and 

lated in the manner most unfavourable Poundage, which the King claimed 

to Laud, in Prynne s Cant. Doom, pp. without the consent of Parliament. 

387, 388.] See Rush worth s Collections, vol. i. p. 

r [Samual Vassall was imprisoned (>41 ; and Append, pp. 5(5, 57.] 


Die Tertio First, he is single in all, both substance and circumstance. 
Secondly, he says ( that he conceives I was the cause of his 
imprisonment/ But his conceit is no proof. He says again, 
that I said at the Council-table (whither he was called), 
Why sit we here, if we be not able to judge ? It may be, 
my Lords, I said so ; I remember not now ; but if I did say 
so, it was of such things only as were fit and proper for that 
honourable Board to judge of. Then he charged me, that I 
should there say, that he did eat the bread out of the 
King s children s mouths ; and that if he were in another 
country he would be hanged for it. " I doubt this gentle 
man has borrowed some of Sir Hen. Vane s memory : but 
I remember no such thing." Yet if I did say it, it was no 
treason 1 : for if I did say he might be hanged for the like in 
some other country, it was because the laws and customs of 
other countries, and this of ours, differ in many things. So 
that by this speech, he was to thank the law of the land 
for his preservation, notwithstanding his opposition against 
Majesty; which, where the laws were not so favourable to 
the subject 2 , would not be endured. 

He says, he was fain to deposit 300/. into the hand of 
Sir Abra. Daws 9 , and that it was taken out the next day. 
But he says withal, it was done by a decree at the Council- 
board ; and I hope I shall not be held author of all decrees 
which passed there. He says, that I called him Sirrah : a 
high crime, if I did so ! high treason at least ! But sure 
this gentleman s spleen swelled up Sir into Sirrah : for that 
is no language of mine to meaner men than Mr. Vassal is. 
" The main of this charge is words ; and those (if uttered) 
hasty, not treasonable : and as M. Lepidus spake in the case 
of C. Lutorius Priscus, Vana a scelestis, dicta a maleficiis 
differunt * ; Vain things differ from wicked, and words from 
malicious deeds : and let any man else be sifted as I have 
been for 3 all the time I have been a bishop, which is now 
upon the point of twenty and three years, and I doubt not 
but as high words as these will be heard fallen from him 

1 [ was no treason : originally written, it was (some words illegible) much 
less treason : ] 

2 [ to the subject in margin.] 3 [ been for orig. written been from ] 

An officer of the Custom?.] * Tacit, lib. iii. Annal. [cap. 50.] 


upon less occasion, and of greater personages than Mr. Die Tertio 
Vassal is. Besides, Mr. Vassal, at the end of his testimony, et Quarto< 
desired the Lords he might have reparation; which alto 
gether in law infirms that which he testified V 

After this followed a charge about a grant passed from VII. 
his Majesty to one Mr. Smith. The difference was between 
Mrs. Burrill and him. 

As far as I can recall, it was thus. The King had made 
a grant to Mr. Burrill, in his lifetime, of a wharf or some 
thing else belonging to the Thames. Mr. Smith conceals 
251 this, and gets a grant from his Majesty, over the head of 
the widow and her children. And, as himself confesses, his 
Majesty being informed that Mrs. Burrill was sister to the 
reverend prelate Bishop Andrews, being then dead, should u 
say, that he would not have granted it to Mr. Smith, had he 
known so much. This 2 was an honourable memory of his 
faithful servant, her worthy brother. But whatsoever was 
done in this business, was by order of the Council-board, and 
not by me : as was also the 250/. which, he says, was paid in 
to Sir Wi. Beecher, (by way of deposit, as I conceive ;) in 
which, if he had any hard measure, the law was open for his 
right. And in the whole business he is single, and in his 
own cause. 

The next charge was Sir Jo. Corbett s v ; which because it VIIT. 
is expressed at large in the Article before recited, I shall not 
here repeat, but apply the answer to it which I then gave. 

Sir John says, he was sent for about reading the Petition 
(121) of Right, at a sessions in the country ; and that the 
Earl of Bridgwater w should say, he was disaffected to the 
King. This concerns not me in anything. He says, that 
for this he was committed, lay long in the Fleet, and was 
denied bail : but he says it was denied by the whole Board. 
" So by his own confession, this was the act of the Council, 

1 [ of his . . . testified. on opposite page.] 

2 [ being then . . . This in margin. Orig. written, he would not have 
given, made (sic) that grant to Mr. Smith, which ] 

did w [John Egerton, first Earl of Bridge- 
v [Sir John Corbet was created a water, son and heir to the Lord Chan- 
Baronet Sept. 19, 1627. He opposed cell or Egerton, first Viscount Brack- 
King Charles s forced loan.] ley.] 


Die Tertio not mine. And this answer I gave to Mr. Browne, when he 
put this part of the charge into his sum l ." 

In his cause with Sir Jo. Stonehouse about a waste, I 
cannot recall the particulars : but whatever was done therein, 
himself confesses was by order at the Council-table, and his 
Majesty present, April 18, 1638. 

For the aisle built by the Lord Viscount Kilmurrye x ; the 
grant which I made was no more than is ordinary in all such 
cases. And tis expressed in the body of the grant, Quantum 
in nobis est, et de jure possumus * ; so there is nothing at all 
done to the prejudice of Sir John s inheritance : for if we 
cannot grant it by law, then the grant is voided by its own 
words. And that the grant was such, and no other, I 
showed the deeds ready attested out of the office. Besides, 
had I wronged him, there was an ordinary remedy open, by 
appeal to the delegates. And this was well known to him ; 
for he did so appeal from a like grant against him, by the 
now Lord Bishop of Duresme, then of Lichfield z , and Sir 
John s diocesan. And whereas tis alleged, that I made 
this grant without the consent of him the patron, or the then 
incumbent/ Sir John acknowledges, like a gentleman, that 
I sent unto him for his consent, if it might have been had. 
And this I foresaw also, that if I had denied the Ld. Viscount 
that which was not unusual, then the complaint would have 
fallen more heavy on the other side, that I made persons of 
quality in a manner recusants, by denying them that con- 
veniency which was in my power to grant. So I must be 
faulty, whatever I do. 

IX. Then the business of the tithes of 2 London was raised up 
in judgment against me. And it was read out of my diary, 
that I projected to give the ministers 3 assistance therein a . 

I had been much to blame, having been 4 Bishop of 
London, should I have had other thoughts. For their case is 

Browne . . . sum. in margin.] 2 [ of orig. of the ] 

the ministers orig. them ] 4 [ having been orig. being ] 

1 [Robert Needham, second Vis- in Reg. Laud, foil. 282 a.b. 283 a.] 

count Kilmorey.] z (Thomas Morton.] 

y [The licence for constructing an * [See vol. iii. p. 254.] 
aisle to Adderley Church is recorded 


very hard ; all their offerings being shrunk away into nothing, Die Tertio 
252 but a poor Easter-book. The ministers of London had often et Quarto - 
petitioned about some relief long before my time : and I did 
then, and do still think it most just they should have it. 
" For they are now under the taskmasters of Egypt ; the 
tale of brick must be made, they must preach twice a Sunday, 
get straw where they can b ." And yet I never thought of 
anything contrary to law, had all been done which I desired. 
For that was no more, than that the citizens would volun 
tarily yield to some reasonable addition, where right and 
need appeared : and this, I am sure, nor did nor could cross 
with the Act of Parliament concerning the tithes of London d . 
And Mr. Moss, who is their only witness in this particular, 
says no more against me, but that I pressed this business 
much, and often : which is most true I did, and held it my 
duty so to do ; but still in the way before mentioned. 

After this came the great charge (as it was accounted) X. 
concerning the censure of Mr. Pryn, and Burton, and Bast- 
wick, in the Star-Chamber, and their banishment (as tis 
called) upon it. The witnesses produced in some circum 
stances of that cause were Mr. Cockshot 6 , Tho. Edwards, 
W. Wickens, Mr. Burton, Mrs. Bastwicke, and Mr. Pryn 
himself. The censure is known, and urged to be against 
law : but so far as any particular is put upon me, my answer 
is present to it. 

1. And first for Mr. Cockshot : he says, Mr. Attorney 
Bankes sent him (being then his servant) to give me an 
account of that business : hence tis inferred, that I took care 
of it. This might have had some show of proof, if I had 
sent to Mr. Attorney to give me an account of it. But 
there s no word of any such proof. And yet, considering 
what relation their cause had to the Church, if I had sent 
and desired some account of the proceedings, I humbly con 
ceive (my place in the Church considered) it could have 
been no great crime. 

b Exod. v. 7. of this matter is to be found in a 
c [37 Hen. VIII. cap. xiL] treatise by Dr. Brian Walton, printed 
d [See the petition of the London from MSS. Lamb. Numb. 273, in Brew- 
Clergy, and some further proceedings ster s Collectanea Ecclesiastica.] 
thereon, in Kushworth s Collections, e [ John Cocket, Lords Journals.] 
vol. ii. pp. 269, seq. The fullest account 


Die Tertio 2. Then were read certain warrants : one, Febr. 1, 1632, 
rto for com(122)mitment; another of Febr. 2, 1636, to bar 
access to them. These were acts of the Lords sitting in 
Star-Chamber, not mine. Then was read a third order after 
sentence given, of May 13, 1634, for the seizing of his books. 
But this, as the former, was an act of the Court, not mine : 
and tis expressed in the order (as the charge itself lays it 
down 1 ) for the disposal of the books according to law/ Then 
the warrant of their commitment to the islands, Aug. 27, 
1637. This commitment was no device of mine; nor did 
I ever hear of it, till it was spoken by others in the Star- 
Chamber : nor do any one of these warrants prove anything 
that can be called my act. And I humbly conceive, that I 
ought not by law, nor can by usage of parliamentary pro 
ceedings, be charged single for those things, which were done 
in public courts. The last order was November 12, 1637, 
about the Aldermen of Coventry, and the Quo warranto 
resolved upon against the charter of that city, only for sup 
posed favours showed to Mr. Pryn in his passage that way. 
First, tis confessed in the charge, that this was an act of the 
Lords. Secondly, that it was made at a full Board. Thirdly, 
tis not urged, that any one man disliked it. Fourthly, the 
complaint which caused it was, that both aldermen and their 
wives, and other citizens, were not content to show Mr. Pryn 253 
kindness ; but they both did and spake that which was dis 
graceful to the Star-Chamber sentence. But howsoever, 
there is no particular in that order, that is or can be charged 
upon me. 

3. This for the warrants. The next witness concerning 
this charge was Tho. Edwards. He says, that three ham 
pers of Mr. Pryn s books were taken out of his house/ 
(whither, it seems, they were conveyed for safety,) and no 
warrant showed to take them/ The weaker man he, to let 
his friend s books go so. But this witness hath not one word 
of me. 

4. The next witness was Wi. Wickens ; he says, he 
knew of no warrant neither ; but that licence was given by 
the sheriffs about six years since/ Here s never a word 

1 [ lays it down originally written confesses ] 


concerning me ; nor am I to answer for the sheriffs act. Die Tertio 
And whereas it is an aggravation in the charge, ( that all et Qua 
Mr. Pryn s books l were sold : Tho. Edwards says, there 
were but three hampers of them ; and this witness says, he 
bought them for two-and-thirty pounds : and these, neither 
by number nor price, could be half of Mr. Pryn s books 2 , if 
I have heard truth of his library. 

5. After this man s testimony, comes Mr. Pryri himself in 
his own cause. He made a long relation of the business, and 
full of bitterness against me. This I doubt not was purposely 
done, to represent me as odious as he could, to the Lords 
and the hearers. But I shall assume nothing to myself, that 
was done by order of the Court of Star-Chamber : whatsoever 
was done there by common consent, was their act, not mine ; 
and if any treason be in it, they are as guilty as I; for 
treason admits no accessories. Nor will I meddle with the 
language : God forgive him that, and whatever else he hath 
done against me : only I shall answer to all such particulars 
of his, as seem to touch upon myself. 

(1.) First then he says, he brought a prohibition, an. 
1629, and that was the ground of my hatred against him/ 
For prohibitions, I shall answer when they are charged : but 
as I remember not this, so I bare him no hatred ; and bear 
ing him none, it could not be for that cause : nor doth he 
so much as offer to prove it was. 

(2.) Next he says, I gave direction to Mr. Attorney Noy, 
and that Dr. Heylin drew some informations for him/ 
Dr. Heylin was well acquainted with Mr. Attorney ; but how 
long, or upon what grounds, I know not : nor did I give 
Mr. Attorney any direction. What Dr. Heylin did, if he did 
anything, is nothing to me, unless I set him on ; which is 
not proved, nor sworn. 

(3.) He further says, that Mr. Attorney read his book 
twice over, and said that he found nothing amiss in it/ 
I know not what Mr. Attorney said to him ; nor what he 
may say of Mr. Attorney, now he is dead : this I am sure of, 
and tis well known to some of your Lps., he said far other 
wise in open court. 

Mr. Pryn s books originally his books ] 
books/ in margin.] 


Die Tertio (4.) He says, f that his book was licensed to the press, 
it Quarto. and afteY t ^ t se i ze ^ and that t ^ G mes senger told him it was 

done by me/ This was done by warrant of the High-Com 
mission, not by me : nor doth he offer any proof against me, 
but that the messenger told him so ; which is a bare hearsay, 
and no proof. 

(5.) Then he says, that there was another order given 254 
about his business, and that I did it/ But he brings no 
proof for this, but that Mr. Ingram, the then keeper of the 
Fleet, told him so. But this is as bare a hearsay as the former, 
and Mr. Ingram not produced to make out the proof. 

(123) (6.) Then he says, < he writ me a letter, and that 
I sent it to Mr. Attorney, to have him yet further proceeded 
against/ Tis true, my Lords, he did write unto me ; but 
whether it were a letter, or a libel, I leave other men to 
judge. This letter I l did send to Mr. Attorney ; but only to 
let him see how I was used, not to have any further proceed 
ing against him. But Mr. Attorney was so moved at the 
sight of it, that when he saw me next, he told me he would 
call him ore tenus for it. Therefore it seems, somewhat was 
very much amiss in it 2 , call the writing what you will. 

(7.) He says, Mr. Attorney thought he had not kept the 
letter ; but he was deceived, for he had it/ But how was 
Mr. Attorney deceived ? I ll tell your Lordships what him 
self told me. When Mr. Attorney saw that I would not agree 
to any further prosecution, he sent for Mr. Pryn, showed him 
the letter, and thought, after he had read it, to give him some 
good counsel, to desist from that libelling humour of his. 
But Mr. Pryn, after he had got the letter into his hands, 
went to the window, as if he meant to read it, and while 
Mr. Attorney was otherwise busied, he tare it into small 
pieces, and threw it out at the window, and then said unto 
him, This shall never rise in judgment against me/ Now 
he confesses he hath the letter still, and that Mr Attorney 
was deceived : belike he tare some other paper for it, and 
put the letter in his pocket. " But that you may see the 
honesty of this man, and what conscience he makes of that 
which he speaks upon his oath ; here he says he had the 

1 [ letter I originally letter (since he calls it so) I ] 

2 [ in it, in margin.] 


letter still, and that Mr. Attorney was deceived : and yet Die Tertio 
after this, when he sets out his Breviate of my life, he con- et Quarto 
fesses, in an unsavoury marginal note, that he tare it, 
Mr. Attorney having need of such a paper. f And for this 
Breviate of his, if God lend me life and strength to end this 
first, I shall discover to the world the base and malicious 
slanders with which it is fraught." 

(8.) He went on, arid said, there was an order made 
against him when term was done, so that he could have no 
remedy/ This is directly against the Court and their order, 
not against me. 

(9.) Then he cites out of the Epistle before my speech 
in the Star-Chamber s, that I censured him for having his 
hand in the pamphlets of those times, and yet was doubtful 
of it/ The words are : For I doubt his pen is in all the 
pamphlets/ But first, tis acknowledged I gave no vote at 
all in his censure : and if I did not judicially censure him, 
then sure I was not doubtful, and yet censured. Secondly, 
he was censured upon his own pamphlet : and his hand was 
certainly in his own, what doubt soever I might make of its 
being in theirs. And thirdly, if the words be extended to 
their pamphlets also, that s nothing to prove I doubted of 
the justness of the sentence. For the words are not, I doubt 
his pen is in all those pamphlets of Mr. Burton s and Dr. 
Bastwick s l ; but in all the pamphlets, whether their 
255 libels, or any others ; so I might be doubtful 2 of the one, 
and yet certain enough of the other. 

(10.) And whereas he adds, that he was jointly charged 
with Dr. Bastwick and Mr. Burton, yet could not be suffered 
to speak together for a joint answer; and that his cross-bill 
was refused/ All this was done by the Court of Star-Cham 
ber ; not by me. And your Lps. know well the Ld. Keeper 
managed the affairs of that Court, not I. 

(11.) Then he says, that at last, Mr. Holt came to him, 
but was threatened that very afternoon for it/ But he doth 

1 [ ( Dr. Bastwick s ; originally written, Dr. Bastwick s, of which these ] 

2 [ doubtful originally doubtful enough ] 

f W. Pryn s Breviate of the Arch- * Paulo post medium, [p. 65. in 

bishop s Life, p. 19. [See also the marg. in the copy followed for this 

Archbishop s Diary at June 17, 1634. reprint.] 
Works, vol. iii. p. 221.] 


Die Tertio not tell your Lps. by whom ; and for my part, more than 
rto civil giving him the time of the day, I never spake with him 
in all my life. 

(12.) He tells your Lps. next, how he passed through 
Coventry, (to which I have spoken already 11 ,) and how through 
Chester, and how some Chester men were used concerning 
him, and his entertainment/ But, my Lords, whatsoever was 
done in this, was by the High Commission at York * and if 
anything be therein amiss, they must answer that did it. 

(13.) Lastly, he spake of sending Sir Wi. Balfore to me, 
and some other like particulars/ Of all which there is no 
proof, but a bare relation, what Mr. Hungerford, Mr. Ingram, 
and Sir Wi. Balfore said ; which is all hearsay, and makes 
no evidence, unless they were present to witness what is said. 
" And here give me leave to observe, that Mr. Pryn hath in 
this charge woven together all that he could say concerning 
both causes, for which he was censured : for in the third 
particular he speaks of his book, for which he was first cen 
sured ; and in the ninth and tenth, of his cross-bill, and the 
like, which were in his second cause/ 

6. The sixth witness was Mr. Burton, a party too. For 
that which he said agreeable to Mr. Pryn, it received the 
same answer. And he added nothing new, but that his 
wife was kept from him by warrant from the Lords : y and if 
it was by the Lords order, then was it not by me. And 
when it was replied, that till he was sentenced to Garnsey, 
his wife had access to him : Mr. Burton answered, Yea ; 
but, my Lords, she was not suffered to be with me at nights/ 
At which the Lords fell a laughing, and there ended his 

(124) 7. The last witness was Mrs. Bastwick : and she 
also said nothing different from Mr. Pryn ; but that she was 
kept from her husband, and that she petitioned the Lords 
about it : but of me in particular, not one word. " And 
though Mr. Brown, in his last reply upon me l , said, the time 
of these men s censure was the noted time of the oppression 
of the subjects liberty; yet I shall crave leave to say of 

1 [From * me/ to end of paragraph, on opposite page.] 

h P. 122. [of orig. MS. See above, p. 106.] ! [See vol. iii. p. 402.] 


these men, as S.Augustin once said of two great Donatists Die Tertio 
in his time, who, it seems, had received some sentence, and et ^ uarta 
afterwards a return, not altogether unlike these men ; (they 
were Felicianus and Prastextatus ;) of those thus S. Augustin : 
f If these men were innocent, why were they so condemned ? 
and if they were guilty, why were they with such honour 
returned, and received k ? This applies itself. And here I am 
willing to put the reader in mind too, that Mr. Brown draw 
ing up an exact sum of my charge, and pressing it hard 
against me, to my remembrance (and I think my notes could 
256 not have slipped it) passed by this charge l concerning Mr. 
Pryn ; and I cannot but think, he had some reason for it." 

This tedious charge being over, the world ran round, and XL 1 
I was brought back again to another charge about demolish 
ing the houses at S. Paul s ; and here three witnesses more 
came against me. 

1. The first was Mr. Bently m . He said, there were above 
sixty houses pulled down/ I answered, I know not the 
number ; but if there were so many, the recompense given 
was sufficient for more. He said further, that there was 
twenty yards between the church and some of the houses/ 
There were very few, if any such (let him look to his oath) ; 
but then some were close upon the wall of the church. And 
suppose all had been twenty yards distant; that was not 
room enough to bring in arid lodge materials for the repair, 
and to turn the carriages. And here again I made mention 
of my salvo, before desired, for the record of Ed. III. touch 
ing the like buildings, and their demolition. 

2. The second witness was Mr. Goare n . For the sixty 
houses as was before testified, I gave the same answer ; as 
also, that the act of the Council-table cannot be said to be 
my act. For St. Gregory s Church, they were not left without 
a place for Divine service (as he would fain have it thought) : 
for they were assigned to a part of Christ-Church, till another 

1 [ charge originally charge, and sure ] 

k "Si innocentes erant, quare sic here properly begins; the previous 

damnati sunf? si scelerati, quare sic cases having been heard on the third 

recepti]" Aug. Epist. clxxii. [li.Ben. day, according to Lords Journals.] 

2. Op., torn. ii. col. 175. B. C.] m [ John Bentley, Lords Journals.] 

1 [The business of the fourth day n [ Gerrard Gore, Lords Journals.] 


Die Tertio church might be built for them . And for the pulling down 
r of St. Gregory s, tis well known to divers of that parish, that 
1 was not so much as one of the referees, to whose view and 
consideration it was referred. But the truth is, this man 
rented the parsonage-house, and had a good pennyworth of 
it to gain by his under-tenant. The going down of that house 
troubles him, and not the church. 

3. The third witness, Walter Biggs P, says nothing different 
from the two former ; but that I said I was opposed for the 
pulling down of the houses. Whence it was inferred, that it 
was my act ; because I was opposed. But, my Lords, I hope 
I might say I was opposed/ without any offence, or without 
taking the orders of the Council-table to myself : for tis well 
known, the work of that repair, under God, was mine ; and 
I took no indirect, no oppressing way to it ; nor can I now 
be ashamed of that, which in future times, in despite of the 
present malice, will be my honour. So that the care of the 
work lying upon me, I might well say I was opposed, though 
the opposition went higher, against the orders of the Lords. 
XII. The last charge of this day, was about the putting down 
of two brewers in Westminster, because the excessive and 
noisome smoke from thence much annoyed the King s house, 
gardens, and park at S. James. These two were Mr. Bond** 
and Mr. Arnold r . 

1. For Mr. Bond, he begins with somewhat that I should 
say at the Council-table: as namely, that f he must seal a 
bond of two thousand pounds, to brew no more with sea- 
coal. Now this argues, if I did so speak, that it was in 
delivering to him the sense of the Board; which office (as 
I have before expressed, and is well known) was usually put 
upon me, if I were present. And your Lps. may here again 
see, what envy hath followed me upon that, which I could 
not decline. He says further, that upon this Mr. Attorney 
Banks proceeded against him in the Exchequer; that there, 257 
upon some occasion, the Ld. Chief Baron should say, Ye are 
wise witnesses for the King ; that his counsel were forbid 

[See the orders of Council relat- mentioned in Lords Journals.] 

ing to S. Gregory s Church, in Kush- i [ Edward Bond, Lords Journals.] 

worth s Collections, vol. ii. pp. 462, r [ Michael Arnold, Lords Jour- 

463.] nals.] 

p [The name of this witness is not 


to plead ; and so a verdict passed for the King/ All this is Die Tertio 
nothing to me ; I was neither Chief Baron nor witness, nor et 
one of the jury that gave the verdict. He says, he was 
informed, that l there was an order of Council made, that 
no man should put up a petition for him/ But himself doth 
not so much as mention, that this order was procured by me : 
and it is but a report, that no petition might be delivered for 
him ; and none of them that told him so, produced for proof : 
so he scandalizes the Lords by hearsay. 

Next he says, that the King graciously sent him with a 
reference to the Council for satisfaction/ First, I must 
believe, if he were so sent, the wrong being only the King s, 
and he willing he should have satisfaction however for his 
loss, " that the Lords would never refuse in such a case, 
whatsoever is here said to the contrary. Secondly, it may be 
observed, how gracious the King was to the subject ; that 
though the annoyance was great to that house of his recrea 
tion and retiring near the city, yet he would not have 
Mr. Bond suffer without satisfaction : notwithstanding which 
goodness of the King 2 , he comes into this great Court ; and, 
so he may have a blow at me, blasts (as much [as] in him lies) 
all the King s proceedings, under the name of op(1.25)pression, 
and that in a high degree/ He says also, that a friend of 
his persuaded him to come to me, and offer me somewhat to 
S. Paul s ; and that he did come to me accordingly, and that 
I said I must have of him a thousand pound to S. Paul s; 
that he was not unwilling to give it, because his brewing was 
worth twice as much to him/ My Lords, I humbly desire 
your Lordships to consider this part of the charge well. 
First, what friend of his this was, that came so to him, he 
says not, nor do I know, and so have no possibility to 
examine. Secondly, he says not that I sent this friend of 
his to him, thus to advise him ; and then his coming no way 
concerns me. Thirdly, when he was come upon this friend s 
persuasion, if he were willing to give a thousand pound to 
S. Paul s, in regard of his double gain from his brewhouse, as 
himself confesses 3 ; I do not see (under favour) what crime 

1 [ he was informed, that in margin.] 

2 [ notwithstanding . . . the King, in margin.] 

3 [ as himself confesses ; in margin.] 



Die Tertio or oppression is in it. Lastly, I remember none of this, and 
let him well weigh l his oath with himself : for I cannot call 
to mind 2 one penny that he gave to S. Paul s : nor yet shall 
I ever think it 3 a sin, to take a thousand pound to such a 
work, from any rich and able man that shall voluntarily offer 
it; especially upon hope of gaining twice as much. 

To make this charge the heavier, he says, I sent him to 
the Queen-mother 8 , who lay then at S. James s; and that 
there he was laboured by some about her to change his 
religion, and then he should have all favour. This is a bold 
oath ; let him look to it, for I sent him not. It may be 
I might tell him, that if the Queen-mother were offended 
with the annoyance from his house, it would not be in my 
power to help him; which was true. And that about his 
religion, was added, to make your Lps. think, that I sent 
him thither for that purpose : but God be thanked, this 
witness says not any one word tending that way. And for 
[the] Queen-mother, since she is thus 4 mentioned, I shall 258 
crave leave to say two things : the one, that I did both in 
open Council, and privately, oppose her coming into England, 
with all the strength I had ; though little to my own ease, as 
I after found : the other, that after she was come, the Lords 
of the Council went in a body to do their duty to her : that 
time I could not but go ; but never, either before or after, 
was I with her. 

Then he concludes, ( that there was a capias out for 
him, and that he was fain to make an escape by night, 
which he did to Alderman Pennington, who very nobly suc 
coured him privately in his house. All which concerns me 

2. The other witness is Mr. Arnold ; who told as long a 
tale as this, to as little purpose. He speaks of three brew- 
houses in Westminster, all to be put down, or not brew with 
sea-coal; that Secretary Windebanck gave the order/ Thus 

1 [A word erased before weigh ] 

2 [ I cannot call to mind originally * I do not rem. (sic.)] 

3 [ think it originally take it ] 

4 [ thus interlined. Originally written, mentioned in this way, ] 

[Mary de Medici?. She came to England in Oct. 1637.] 


far it concerns not me. He added, that I told him they Die Tertio 
burnt sea-coal. I said indeed, I was informed they did ; and et ^ uarto 
that I hope was no offence. He says, that upon Sir John 
Bankes his new information, four Lords were appointed to 
view the brewhouses, and what they burnt/ But I was none 
of the four, nor did I make any report, for or against. He 
says, Mr. Attorney Banks came one day over to him, and 
told him that his house annoyed Lambeth, and that I sent 
him over/ The truth is this : Mr. Attorney came one day 
over to dine with me at Lambeth, and walking in the garden 
before dinner, we were very sufficiently annoyed from a 
brewhouse ; the wind bringing over so much smoke, as made 
us leave the place. Upon this Mr. Attorney asked me, why 
I would not show myself more against those brewhouses *, 
being more annoyed by them 2 than any other ? I replied, 
I would never be a means to undo any man, or^ put him 
from his trade, to free myself from smoke. And this witness 
doth after confess, that I said the same words to himself. 
Mr. Attorney at our parting said, he would call in at the 
brewhouse : I left him to do as he pleased, but sent him not: 
and humbly desired Mr. Attorney may be examined of the 
truth of this. 

He further says, that he came over to me to Lambeth, 
and confesses the words before mentioned; and that he 
offered me ten pound yearly to S. Paul s, and that I said he 
might give twenty/ He says, that I sent him to Mr. At 
torney; but withal told him, that if he found not such 
favour as I wished him, it was a sign he had more powerful 
adversaries than my friendship could take off/ In all this 
I cannot see what fault I have committed. And I foretold 
him truth : for though the business (126) were after referred 
to Mr. Attorney and myself, (as himself says,) yet we were 
not able to end it. Then he says, I would not suffer Sir 
Ed. Powell, Mster. of the Requests, to deliver his petition to 
the King/ But first, this is but Sir Ed. Powell s report, and 
so no proof, unless he were produced to justify it. Secondly, 
the world knows I had no power in Sir Edward : he would 

1 [ those brewhouses, originally written those brewhouses, than ] 

2 [ by them in margin.] 

I 2 


Die Tertio then willingly have delivered petition, or anything else, that 
st Quarto. j ic thought might hurt me : and the cause is known *. 

Lastly, he says , t Mr. Attorney sent out a capias for him ; 
that the sheriff came by force to take him, and what hard 
shift he made to escape : that after, upon his petition, the 
Lords gave him six months time to provide himself else 
where; and that he was fain to give five hundred pound 
bond not to brew there/ To all this I then said, and say 259 
still : First, here s no one thing charged upon me in parti 
cular. Secondly, here s not a word of my advice or endeavour 
to set on Mr. Attorney, or to move the Lords to anything 
against him. And whereas it hath been urged, that my power 
was such, that 2 I swayed the Lords to go my way : this 
cannot be said, without laying an imputation upon the Lords, 
as if they could so easily be over-wrought by any one man, 
and that against law ; which is a most unworthy aspersion 
upon men of honour. And if all this were true, it is but 
treason against 3 a brewhouse. Nor yet may this be called 
slighting of any evidence, which is but to answer home 
in my own just defence. "And out of this I gave my 
answer to Mr. Browne s summary charge against me in the 
House of Commons, for that which concerned these two 
brewers 4 V 

And here, before I close this day, give me leave, I beseech 
your Lps., to observe two things : First, that here have 

1 [ he says, originally he tells me, ] 

2 [ that originally as that ] 3 [ against in margin.] 
4 [ charge . . . brewers. on opposite page.] 

1 [Edward, son and heir of Edward answer to the evidence given in the 

Powell of Fulham and Pengethly, morning; and that Mr. Dell, his 

was created a Baronet, Jan. 18, 162.] Secretary, shall be permitted to be 

u [It appears from the Lords Jour- with him during the trial of his busi- 
nals, that on Monday, March 18, the ness." It was ordered in the after- 
Archbishop, after the hearing of the noon sitting, " That this House will 
two last-mentioned cases, concerning further proceed against the Arch- 
S. Gregory s Church and the brewers, bishop of Canterbury, on Friday 
made his reply to the charges brought morning, at nine of the clock; and 
on the previous Saturday; that the that in the meantime, his counsel 
House then adjourned to an afternoon shall have recourse unto him, accord- 
sitting, when the Archbishop replied ing to the former orders of this 
to the evidence in the case of the House ; and shall have a salvo to 
brewers. It was ordered in the make use of the Record of Edward III., 
morning sitting, " That Ihe Arch- mentioned by the Archbishop this 
bishop shall have liberty till four of day in his defence.] 
the clock this afternoon, to make his 


been thirteen witnesses at least produced in their own cause. Die Tertio 
Secondly, that whereas here have been so many things et Q uarto< 
urged this clay about the Star-Chamber and the Council- 
table ; the Act made this Parliament x , for the regulating of 
the one, and the taking away of the other, takes no notice of 
anything past ; and yet acts past (and those joint acts of the 
Council, and not mine) are urged as treasonable, or con 
ducing to treason, against l me. Nay, the Act is so far from 
looking back, or making such offences treason, as that if any 
offend in future, and that several times, yet the Act makes it 
but misdemeanour, and prescribes punishments accordingly. 

1 [ against originally in ] 

* [16 Car. I. cap. x.] 


CAP. XXVI. 260 


I. THE first charge of this day was concerning the indictment 

164 22 f M r Newcommin, a minister at Colchester, for refusing to 
DieQuinto. administer the sacrament but at the rails a ; and the prose 
cution which followed against Burrowes for this. The two 
witnesses of the particulars are Burrowes b and Mr. Aske c . 

1. The testimony which Burrowes gave was: That Mr. 
Newcommin would not administer the communion but at 
the rail ; that he indicted him for receiving it there ; that 
the foreman threw it out/ &c. If Mr. Newcommin did this, 
complaint might have been made of him; but howsoever, 
here s no one word of any command from me. And it seems 
the factious malice of Burrowes was seen, that the foreman 
at first threw away the indictment. He says, that upon 
this he was called into the High Commission ; a warrant from 
me; his house beset; Stockdall left the warrant with the 
Mayor ; a habeas corpus not obeyed/ The warrant, by which 
he was detained, was from the High Commission, not from 
me : and himself says l , there were six or seven hands to 
the warrant. But then he says 2 , My hand alone was to 
another warrant 3 ; which is impossible, for there must be 
three hands at the least, or no warrant can issue out : and 
all his proof of this latter is, that he saw my hand ; which 
I hope he may do, though other hands besides mine were 
to it. For the habeas corpus, if the Mayor said, (for so 
Burrowes adds,) he would obey my warrant, rather than the 
King s writ, because it came first; he was extremely ill- 
advised : but if a mayor of a town give an indiscreet, or a 
worse answer, I hope that shall not be imputed to me. And 

1 [Some words here erased, beginning, though upon oath, speaks either 
the rest illegible.] 

2 [ But then he says, in margin. Originally written, And by-and-by he 
says/] 3 [ to another warrant originally to it ] 

a [This appears to be the case re- b [ Samuel Burroughs, Lords Jour- 
ferred to in Accounts of Province for nals.] 
the year 1639. Works, vol. v. p. 364.] c [ Richard Aske, Lords Journals.] 


if there be anything in this business, why is not Stockdall Die 
the messenger produced, that knows those proceedings ? 
Lastly, he speaks of a letter sent to Judge Crawly e d , and 
showed to Judge Hutton 6 / But first, he says not, that letter 
was sent by me, or by my means. Secondly, he names not 
the contents of the letter ; (127) without which, no man can 
tell, whether it charge anything upon me or not. And until 
the letter be produced, or sufficiently witnessed, (neither of 
which is offered,) tis but like a written hearsay. And I hum 
bly pray you to observe from himself, that the two reverend 
judges looking into the business, said, it was a mere cheat 
for money, and returned him back to Colchester : which is a 
proof too, that the habeas corpus was obeyed ; for if he were 
not brought up before them, how could he be returned by 

2. Then Mr. Aske, the second witness, was produced. He 
said, there came players to town, and that some, which said 
they came from me, were taken in a tavern upon Easter-eve 
at unseasonable hours/ I know not of any that were sent 
from me: but if any were, and kept any disorder in the 
261 town, especially at such a time, Mr. Aske did very well to 
question them. He says, that upon the matter I referred 
him twice to Sir John Lambe, and that at the second time 
he found the plot was to make him an instrument about the 
rails, which he absolutely refused/ I did refer him (and it 
may be twice) to Sir John Lambe ; but if Sir John l spake to 
him about the rails, he had no commission from me so to do. 
I understood Mr. Aske too well, to offer to make him an 
instrument in such a business. " His zeal would have set the 
rails on fire, so soon as ever he had come near them f ." 

Next he says, that Mr. Newcommin was indicted, as is 
aforesaid, and that indictment found : that letters missive 
were sent for him and his wife, by Stockdall/ If letters 
missive by Stockdall, then they were sent by the High Com 
mission, whose joint act cannot be charged upon me : and if 
1 [ Sir John in margin. Originally he ] 

d [Sir Francis Crawley. He was e [Sir Rich. Hutton, one of the Jus- 
impeached by the Commons in 1641, tices of Common Pleas. He was the 
for the part he took respecting ship- author of Reports. (Wood, Ath. Ox. 
money. See Rushworth s Collections, iii. 26.)] 
vol. v. p. 329.] { Frigidius dictum. W. S. A. C. 


Dio anything can be proved, why is not Stockdall produced? He 

1 * says, that he went into Holland to avoid the oath ex officio. 
The oath ex officio was then the common, and, for aught I yet 
know, then the legal course of that court : so I could not 
help the tender of that oath unto them, had they stayed and 
appeared. But the truth is, he was too guilty to appear ; for 
his wife was a separatist, and himself confesses, that she came 
not to the prayers of the Church. And as for him, I ever 
found him the great maintainer of all wilful opposition against 
the Church. He further says, he came to me to Croydon ; 
and that there I told him, he might have put the indictment 
against Mr. Newcommin in his pocket/ Indeed, my Lords, 
if I did say so, I think I spake it truly. For if he had borne 
any respect to the reputation of the clergy, I think he might 
have pocketed it for one sessions, without any prejudice at 
all to the law or anything else. God knows, this is often done. 
And if thereupon I added, as Mr. Aske says I did, that if 
he were so strictly set against churchmen in the temporal 
courts, he must look for as strict proceedings in the High 
Commission/ I see no great crime in it ; for we are as strictly 
bound to prosecute in the one, as he was in the other. And 
if his clerk, as he says, was attached, who read l the indict 
ment/ yet it is not said by himself that he was attached for 
reading it. " And if it w r ere so, that some jurors were 
attached, and not Mr. Aske s clerk only, (as Mr. Browne 
pressed it in the sum of his charge,) yet the answer comes all 
to one. For no witness says, these jurors were called into 
the High Commission for beiri^ jurors, or discharging that 
legal duty. And then I hope a man s being of a jury shall 
not excuse him for& answering any crime in any court that 
hath power to call him : provided he be not called off at the 
time of his service, or while he is under the privilege of that 
court in which he is a juror. And according to this I 
gave Mr. Browne my answer 2 . And howsoever, the attach 
ment goes, of course, out from the Commission, and not 
from me 3 ." 

1 [ who read in marg. Originally, for reading ] 

2 [ And if it were . . . answer. on opposite page.] 

3 [Some words here erased so as to be illegible.] 



The second charge of this day b was about the censure Die 
which fell on the inhabitants of Beckington in Somersetshire, 
about their refusing to remove the communion-table according 
to the order of their diocesan 1 : about which were produced 
three witnesses, to whos evidence I shall answer in order. 
262 1. The first was Wi. Longe, who says he was foreman of the 
jury, when these men were indicted for a riot ; and that, as 
he conceives, the parson spake with the judge about it, which 
caused a sudden verdict/ The parson of the place spake 
with the judge, and he conceives that produced a sudden 
verdict. First, he doth but conceive so, and that can make no 
proof. If it did make proof, tis only against the parson, not 
against me. And if the parson speaking of it did say, (as 
Mr. Longe affirms he did,) that this riot was like a Walden- 
sian or Swisserland commotion/ he must answer for his own 
distempered language ; me it cannot concern. 

2. The second witness was George Longe. He says, the 
Bp. of BathJ commanded the communion-table to be removed, 
and set at the upper end of the chancel ; that the church 
wardens refusing, were excommunicated/ But he says 
withal, that they appealed to the Arches, and had remedy. 
Then he adds further, that the Bp. proceeded again, but 
the churchwardens would not remove it, saying it was an 
innovation, and against law/ But, my Lds., tis neither : 
and therefore these churchwardens were in a great contempt 
against their Bishop, to the ill (128) example of all that 
country. And that it is no innovation against law, appears 
by the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, where it is com 
manded expressly to be set there. The words are : The 
holy table in every church (not cathedrals only) shall be 
decently made, and set in the place where the altar stoodV 
Now all men know, that with us in England the altar stood 
north and south, at the upper end of the chancel ; and to set 
it east and west had been cross the place where the altar 
stood, and not in it. And this being law in the beginning of 
the Reformation, cannot now be an innovation. 

h [The Lords Journals mention only ject are preserved in MSS. Lamb., 

the case of Colchester as entered into numb. 943, pp. 481 505.] 

on this day] J [William Pierce.] 

1 [This case is stated in full in k Tnjunct. of Q. Eliz. fine. [Tn Wil- 

Prynne s Cant. Doom, pp. 97 101 : kins Concilia, torn. iv. p. 188.] 
and several papers on the same sub- 


*J When they came to me again, (as they say they did,) if I 

then told them, they deserved to be laid by the heels for 
the contempt of their Bp. ; under favour, my Lords, I spake 
truth. And give me leave, I beseech you, to tell you this : 
it began to be a general complaint, not of the Bishop of Bath 
only, but of other bishops also, that they could do little or 
no service in their several countries, by reason of the inhi 
bitions which issued out of my courts to stay their proceed 
ings. And I wanted no good friends in Court to tell the 
King as much, when anything was complained of. By this 
I was brought into great straits : deny appeals I might not ; 
frequent granting in my courts destroyed in a manner the 
Bps . jurisdictions. In this difficulty, seeing the wilfulness 
of these men, and knowing they had received full benefit by 
their appeal once already in the same case; I did refuse to 
hear any more of it, (unless there were new matter ;) but yet 
left them free to appeal to the delegates. 

For Mr. Hughes 1 , the parson there, if he gave ill words, 
or laid violent hands on any of his neighbours/ it concerns 
not me : let him answer for what he hath said, or done. "Tis 
further said, that Mr. Hughes was with me at Windsor, and 
had letters from me to the Lord Chief Justice Finch/ But 
this witness delivers not this upon his own knowledge; I 
sent no letter by him, nor did he see me send by any other : 
so this is merely a report, and he doth not so much as tell 
from whom. Yea, but then he says, that Mr. Morgan/ 
a man inward with the judge, told him, that the judge told 263 
him, that the little man had put a spoke in their cart ; and 
thereupon/ as he conceives, the petty jury was changed. 
Here are, if your Lordships mark them, two great proofs. 
The one is the witness s report of Mr. Morgan s report, that 
the judge had said so of me : but why is not Mr. Morgan 
produced to clear this? The other is not the knowledge, 
but the conceit only of the witness : he conceives/ which, I 
am confident, cannot sway with your Lps. for a proof. 
" Besides, were Mr. Morgan never so inward with that judge, 
yet it follows not that he must know all. And if that judge 

1 [Alexander Huish was the name him, and mentions, among other 
of the Incumbent. Wood (Ath. Ox. things, that he assisted Walton in 
iii. 812) gives a favourable notice of the Polyglott Bible.] 


did mean me, (for name me he did not,) he did me the more ie 
wrong. For I never desired anything of any judge, him or " 
other, but what was according to law. Nay, I so expressed 
myself, as that, if by mistake or misinformation I had desired 
anything which was not according to law, I humbly desired 
my motion might be, as if it had never been made 1 ." 

3. The third witness is Mr. John Ash m . That which this 
gentleman says is, ( that Sir John Lambe told that man which 
came about that business 2 [he] could have no appeal ad 
mitted without me ; and that if he would be so troublesome, 
he should be laid by the heels/ I have 3 given your Lps. an 
account, why he could not have an appeal without me : he 
had had the benefit of an appeal before in the same cause. 
And for this witness, he delivers no knowledge of his own ; 
but only he says, the man employed related it to him : so tis 
a relation, no proof. He says, the penance was enjoined 
them in three churches / And truly, my Lds., their disobe 
dience to their Bishop was great ; but if the penance enjoined 
were too heavy, it was the act of their own Bp., not mine. 
Then he says, that the Ld. Finch told him, another power 
ful hand was upon him, intimating me/ First, this is no 
knowledge of the witness, but a speech of the Lord Finch. 
Secondly, if the Ld. Finch did say so, of a powerful hand, 
he wronged me much, but himself more, to confess he could 
be drawn awry in judgment. Thirdly, this witness says not 
that he named me, but that he ( intimated me : I pray your 
Lps . judgment, what a forward witness 4 this man is, that 
can upon oath deliver what is intimated, and of whom. 

He says further, that upon petition to Sir Wi. Portman, 
for some assistance, the Bishop of Bath laid all upon me ; 
and that when himself came to me at the Tower, since my 
restraint, I told him the Bp. of Bath did like an obedient 
Bp. to his Metropolitan/ For this, my Lords, here is no 
proof that the Bishop laid this business upon me, but Sir 
W. Portmaii s report. Sir William is a worthy gentleman ; 

1 [ it follows . . . made. on opposite page.] 

2 [ told . . . business/ in marg. Originally, told him he ] 

3 (Originally written This was ] * [ witness interlined.] 

m [Lord of the Manor of Beckington, n [Beckington, Frome Selwood, and 
nd M.P. for Westbury.] SS. Peter and Paul in Bath.] 


Die w hy is not he produced ? Why is not the Bishop, that is 

said to lay all upon me, brought into the court, that he may 
clear himself and me, if he said it not ; or that I may make 
him ashamed, if he said it ? For tis confessed, that in the 
first business, the churchwardens had remedy by their appeal 
to me; but that then the (129) Bishop began again, as the 
former witness declared : nor knew I anything of this busi 
ness till the appeal came. As for my answer to himself, that, 
under favour, is quite mistaken : for I did not say, that in 
this particular, but that in his general proceedings in his 261 
diocese, the Bishop of Bath carried himself like an obedient 
Bp. to his Metropolitan/ Nor can my words be drawn to 
mean this particular : for how could I say, that in this parti 
cular he carried himself like an obedient Bishop to me, when 
after remedy given to these men by their first appeal into my 
court, he began with them again upon the same cause? 
Besides, my Lords, this is not the first time Mr. Ash hath 
mistaken me. ee Mr. Browne, in summing up this charge 
against me, falls twice very heavily upon this business of 
Beckington. First, for the point of religion : and there he 
quoted a passage out of my speech in the S tar-Chamber, 
where I do reserve the indifferency of the standing of the 
communion-table either way / and yet, saith he, they were 
thus heavily sentenced for that which I myself hold indif 
ferent. But first, this sentence was laid upon them by their 
own bishop, not by me. Secondly, the more indifferent the 
thing was, the greater was their contumacy to disobey their 
ordinary : and had it riot been a thing so indifferent, and 
without danger of advancing Popery, would Queen Elizabeth, 
who banished Popery out of the kingdom, have endured it 
in her own chapel all her time ? Thirdly, the heaviness of 
the sentence so much complained of was but to confess their 
contumacy in three churches of the diocese, to example other 
men s obedience. Secondly, for the same point, as it con 
tained matter against law, I answered Mr. Browne as I had 
before answered the Lords l P." 

1 [ Mr. Browne, in summing up ... Lords. on opposite page. 

[Speech against Burton, Prynne, See Works, vol. vi.] 
and Bastwick,] p. 54 [of orig. Edit,; P P. 128 [of orig. MS. See above, 
p. 180 in marg. in this present reprint, p. 121.] 


The third charge was about certain houses given to S. Ed- Die 
mund s, Lombard-street,, where old Mr. Pagett is parson 


The witnesses are two. 

1. The first is Mr. Symms ; who says, that after a 1 verdict, 
Mr. Pagett, the incumbent, upon a pretence, that these tene 
ments, were church-land, got a reference to the Ld. Bishop 
of London, then Lord Treasurer, and myself/ My Lords, 
we procured not the reference : but when it was brought to 
us under the King s hand, we could not refuse to sit upon it. 
Upon full hearing, we were satisfied that the cause was riot 
rightly stated, and therefore we referred them to the law 
again for another trial; and for costs to the Barons of 
that court. " And this was the answer which I gave to Mr. 
Browne, when he instanced in this case 2 ." He says, the 
houses were given to superstitious uses/ But possessions 
are not to be carried away for saying so. If men may get 
land from others, by saying it was given to superstitious 
uses, they may get an easy purchase. And Mr. Symms is 
here in his own case : but whether the houses were given to 
superstitious uses or not, is the thing to be tried in law, and 
not to be pleaded to us 3 . He complains, that I would not 
hear his petition alone : and surely, my Lords, I had no 
reason, since 4 it was referred to another with me. And yet 
I see, though I was not in the reference alone, nor would 
hear it alone, yet I must be alone in the treason. And here 
I desired that Mr. Pagett, the incumbent, might be heard. 

2. The other witness was Mr. Barnard. He says, he was 
present at the hearing, and that Mr. Symms said he was 
undone, if he must go to a new trial/ But, my Lords, so 
many men say, that by their troublesomeness in lawsuits go 

265 about to undo others. He says, that Mr. Pagett named his 
own referees/ If that be so, tis no fault of mine. He says, 
the reference was made to us only to certify, not to make 
any order in it/ If this be so, here s no proof so much 

a interlined.] 2 [ And this . . . case. in marg.] 

to us. originally written, here. ] 

reason, since originally reason, for since ] 

i [Ephraim Pagit, or Paget, the Kent, where he died, according to 

author of the Heresiography. He Wood, in 1647. In the Preface to the 

was so molested in the beginning of sixth edition of the Heresiography, 

the Rebellion, that he gave up his he is said to have died in 1650, aged 

living, and retired to Deptford, in 84. (Wood, Ath. Ox. iii. 210, 211).] 


Dic . as offered, that we did not certify, as we were required, and 

then had power given to order it, which we did. And he 
confesses the counsel on both sides had full hearing before 
aught was done. 

IV. The fourth charge of this day was concerning the impri 
sonment of one Grafton, an upholster in London. The 
witnesses three ; of which, 

1. The first is Grafton, in his own cause; and His much if 
he cannot tell a plausible tale for himself. He says first, 
that twelve years ago he was committed, and fined fifty 
pounds, by other commissioners/ By others, my Lords; 
therefore not by me ; and an act of the High Commission, 
by his own words, it appears to be 1 . He says, he was con 
tinued in prison by my procurement, as he verily believes/ 
First, as he verily believes is no proof. And the ground of 
his belief is as weak ; for he gives no reason of it but this, that 
Dr. Ryves, the King s Advocate 1 , spake with the Barons/ 
but he doth not say about what, or from whom 2 . He adds 
further, ( that Mr. Ingram, keeper of the Fleet, would not 
give way to his release 3 , notwithstanding the Barons orders, 
till he heard from me/ Here s no man produced, that heard 
Mr. Ingram say so, nor is Mr. Ingram himself brought to 
testify. Lastly, he says, that he then made means in court, 
and so repaired to the Barons again, but all in vain ; and that 
Baron Trevor 8 cried out, O the Bishop! O the Bishop! 
First, here s a confession of means in court made to the 
judges; so belike, they may have means made to them, so it 
be not by me. For the particular, I did humbly desire the 
Baron, being then present, might be asked. He was asked ; 
he blushed and fumbled, the Lords laughed, and I could not 
hear what he said. 

2. The second witness was Mr. Lenthall ; but he said 
nothing but that there was an order for Grafton s liberty/ 
which is not denied. 

1 [ be. originally written me. ] 2 [ but . . . whom. in margin.] 

3 [ release, originally release, till ] 

r [Thomas Ryves ; he was after- been already fined, on his impeach- 

wards employed by King Charles at ment by the Commons, though per- 

the treaty of Newport. See a notice mitted to continue in his office. See 

of his Life in Wood, Ath. Ox. iii. 304.] the articles against him in Rushworth s 

[Sir Thomas Trevor, one of the Collections, vol. v. pp. 339 seq.] 
Barons of the Exchequer. He had 


3. The third was Mr. Eivett. He says, that Mr. Ingram Die 
said that Grafton was a Brownist, and must be brought into 
the Fleet again, because he did much hurt among the King s 
subjects/ This is a bare report of a speech (130) of Mr. 
Ingram; it no way concerns me. And a separatist he is 
from the Church of England ; but whether a Brownist or no 
I cannot tell, there are so many sects, (God help us !) And 
much harm he hath done among weak people ; for most true 
it is, which S.Cyril 1 observes, TIpoeToi/jid^ei, 6 
o"%icr fiara T<>V \au>v, iva evTrapaSe/cros ^evrfrau o 
That the Devil prepares these schismatical separations, that 
so much the more easily the enemy may be received/ As 
for this man, he was in his way 2 cunning enough; for, under 
pretence that he suffered by me, he got Madame Vantlett, 
and other of the French, to negotiate with the Queen s 
Majesty in his behalf. And this I found, that sometimes, 
when her Majesty knew not of it, they sent to the Barons for 
favour for him. " And yet I never heard that Baron Trevor 
ever cried out, O the French ! O the French ! Nor can 
I tell what stopped his mouth in this cry, and opened it so 
266 wide in the other, when we moved to defend ourselves and 
our proceedings. Where, I humbly desire, this passage of the 
law may be considered. In the case of depraving the 
Common Prayer-book, (so much scorned and vilified at this 
day,) and for not coming to church, the words of the law 
are, ( For due execution hereof, the Queen s most excellent 
Majesty, the Lords Temporal, and all the Commons in this 
present Parliament assembled, do in God s name earnestly 
require and charge all the archbishops, and bishops, and" 
other ordinaries, that they shall endeavour to the uttermost 
of their knowledge that the due and true execution hereof 
may be had throughout their dioceses and charges, as they 
will answer before God/ &c. u Now, if I do not this, here s 
an apparent breach of the law ; and if I do it against this 
common and great depraver of this book, then the judge, 
who by this law should assist me, cries, O the Bishop ! And 

1 [Originally, S. Cyril of Jerusalem ] 

2 [ for most. ..way on opposite page. It was originally written, as I 
have been afterwards informed, and cunning enough he was; ] 

* Cyril. Hierosol. Cateche. xv. [ 9, u 1 Eli?:, c. 2. [ 15-1 

p. 227. Paris, 1720.] 


Die this answer I gave Mr. Browne, when he summed his charge 

Quinto - against me 1 ." 

V. The fifth charge of this day was Mr. John Ward s case, in 
a suit about simony in the High Commission. 

He says (for he also is in his own cause), that upon a 
pretence of a lapse by simony, I procured a presentation from 
the King to the church of DunningtonV His Majesty 
trusted me with the titles, which did accrue to him in that 
kind ; and because simony had been so rife, commanded me 
to be careful I might not betray this trust ; and therefore, 
the simony being offered to be proved, I procured his Ma 
jesty s presentation for trial of the title. And this, I conceive, 
was no offence; though this be that which he calls the 
heaviness of my hand upon him. He further says, ( that I 
sent to the Bishop of Norwich w to admit the King s Clerk, 
the church being void, 7 Junii, 1638. Nor do I yet see, my 
Lords, what crime it is in me, trusted especially as before, 
to send to the bishop to admit, when the church is void. 
Many lay patrons do that upon allegation of simony, before 
proof 2 ; "and Mr. Bland, produced as a witness also, says 
that the Lord Goring x prevailed with the Ld. Bishop of 
Norwich not to admit. And I hope an Archbp., and 
trusted therein by his Majesty, may as lawfully write to the 
ordinary for admission of the King s Clerk, as any lay lord 
may write against it. But Mr. Ward says nothing to- 3 this 
of the Lord Goring; but adds, that Sir John Rowse ^ pre 
vented this admission by a Ne admit tas, Junii 12; and that 
thereupon I said, it was to no purpose for us to sit there, if, 
after a long trial and judgment given, all might be stopped. 
If I did say so, I think it is a manifest truth that I spake ; 
for it were far better not to have simony tried at all in ecclesi 
astical courts, than after a long trial to have it called off into 
Westminster Hall, " to the double charge and trouble of the 

1 [ proceedings. Where/. . . me. on opposite page.] 

2 [ proof; orig. proof. He adds, that Sir John Rowse (as below in text.)] 

3 [ to originally in ] 

v [Ezekiel Wright was presented by w [Rich. Montagu.] 

the Crown to Dennington, (which is x [George Goring, first Baron Go- 

the correct name of the place,) April 3, ring.] 

1637. The living is stated to have > [Sir John Rowse, of Rowsclench, 

beeii vacant by reason of Simony, in Warwickshire.] 
(Uymcr, Fml IX. ii. 143.)] 


subject. But if the law will have it otherwise, we cannot Die 
help that. Nor is this expression of mine any violation of ^ uinto - 
the law." 

Then he says, a ( letter was directed from the Court of the 
High Commission to the judges, to revoke the Ne admittas ; 
and that I was forward to have the letter sent/ How for 
ward soever I was, yet it is confessed the letter was sent by 
the court, not by me. And let the letter be produced, it 
shall therein appear, that it was not to revoke the Ne admittas, 
267 but to desire the judges to consider, whether it were not fit 
to be revoked, considering the church was not void till Junii 
14. And it hath been usual in that court to write or send 
some of their body to the temporal judges, where they con 
ceive there hath been a misinformation or a mistake in the 
cause, the judges being still free to judge according to law, 
both for the one and the other. And here he confesses the 
writ of Ne admittas was revoked by three judges, and there 
fore, I think, legally. 

But here he hopes he hath found me in a contradiction. 
Tor when I writ to the Bishop of Norwich, Junii 7, 1638, 
I there said the church was void ; whereas this letter to the 
judges says it was not void till Junii 14. But here is 110 
contradiction at all ; for after the trial past, and the simony 
proved, the church is void to so much as the bishop s giving 
of institution ; and so I writ Junii 7. But till the sentence 
was pronounced in open court, and read, the church was not 
void as touching those legalities, which, as I humbly conceive, 
do not till then take place in Westminster Hall ; and the 
reading of the sentence was not till Junii 14. However, if 
I were mistaken in my own private letter to the Bishop, yet 
that was better thought on in the letter from the High-Com 
mission to the judges. He says lastly, that upon a Quare 
impedit after taken forth, it was found that the King had no 
right/ Why, my Lords, if different courts judge differently 
of simony, I hope that shall not be imputed to me. In the 
court where I sat, I judged according to my conscience, and 
the law, and the proof, as it appeared to me. And for Dr. 
Reeves 2 his letter, which he says was sent to the cursitor to 

e [The name is thus spelt in the MS. The person meant is Dr. Ryves, 
mentioned above, p. 126, note r .] 

LAUD. VOL. iv. K 


Die stop the Ne admittas, let Dr. Reeves answer it : the witness 

himself confesses, that Dr. Reeves says the command to the 
cursitor was from the Lord Keeper, not from me. "And here 
ends the treason against Mr. Ward ; and till now I did not 
think any could have been committed against a minister." 
VI. Then followed the case of Ferdinando Adams a his excom 
munication, and the suits which followed it : as it will appear 
in b the witnesses following, which were four. 

(131) 1. The first was Mr. Hen. Dade, the commissary 
then before whom the cause began ; and he confesses * he 
did excommunicate Adams for not blotting out a sentence of 
Scripture, which the said Adams had caused to be written 
upon the church wall, as in many churches sentences of 
Scripture are written. But he tells your Lps. too, that this 
sentence was, My house shall be called the house of prayer ; 
but ye have made it a den of thieves / The commissary s 
court was kept (as usually it is) at or toward the west end of 
the church; and just over the court Adams had written this 
sentence upon the wall, merely to put a scorn and a scandal 
(though I hope an unjust one) upon that court. " He was 
commanded to blot it out. He would not, because it was 
Scripture; as if a man might not revile and slander, nay, 
speak treason too, (if he will be so wicked,) and all in Scrip 
ture phrase : witness that lewd speech lately uttered, To 
your tents, O Israel d / &c." Upon this he was excommuni 
cated, and I cannot but think he well deserved it. For the 
suit which followed against Mr. Dade in the Star-Chamber; 
the motion, that Mr. Attorney would leave him to the 268 
common prosecutor, and not follow it in his own name/ 
himself confesses was made in open court by Mr. Bierly, and 
that from me he had no instructions at all. 

2. The second witness is Adams, in his own cause. To 
the place of Scripture I have spoken already. And the next 
that he says is, that Sir Nath. Brent, in my visitation, 
commanded the setting of the communion-table at the upper 
end of the chancel ; that upon his not blotting out the 
passage of Scripture, he had an action, and that his solicitor 

a [Adams was one of the church- b by 

wardens of S. Mary-at-Tower, Ipswich. c S. Mat. xxi. 13. 

See more particulars of this case in d 1 Reg. xii. 16. 
Prynne, Cant. Doom, p. 101.] 


was committed by J. Jones, till he relinquished his suit/ In Die 
all this there is not one word of anything that I did. And for Qainto - 
that which Sir Nath. Brent did about placing the communion 
table, tis answered before e . He says also, that when he 
saw that he must prosecute his suit against Commissary 
Dade in his own name, he left the kingdom/ And surely, 
my Lords, if he would leave the kingdom, rather than prose 
cute his cause in his own name, tis more than a sign, that his 
cause was not very good. 

3. The third witness was Mr. Cockshot, one of Mr. At 
torney Banks his servants. He says, that Adams moved 
him, and he Mr. Attorney, and that thereupon Mr. Attorney 
gave his warrant against Dade/ By which your Lps. may 
see how active Mr. Cockshot was 1 against a church-officer, 
and in so foul a scandal. He says also, that Mr. Dade came 
to Mr. Attorney, and told him that I did not think it fit a 
prosecution in such a cause should be followed in Mr. At 
torney s name/ First, tis true, I did not think it fit ; nor 
did Mr. Attorney himself, when, upon Mr. Bierlye s motion, 
he fully understood it. Secondly, the cause being so scan 
dalous to a church-officer, I conceive I might so say to Mr. 
Dade, or any other, without offence. But then thirdly, 
here s not one word that I sent Mr. Dade to Mr. Attorney 
about it : he came and used my name 2 , so Mr. Cockshot says, 
but not one word that I sent him. Lastly, he says, that 
Mr. Attorney told him that I blamed him for the business, 
and that thereupon he chid this witness, and sent him to me, 
and that I rebuked him for it ; but he particularly remembers 
not what I said/ Nor truly, my Lords, do I remember any 
of this. But if I did blame Mr. Attorney for lending his 
name in such a scandalous cause as this, I did (as I conceive) 
what became me : and if he chid his man, he did what 
became him : and if I rebuked Mr. Cockshot, when he was 
sent to me, sure he deserved it ; and it seems it was with 110 
great sharpness, that he cannot remember anything of it. 
" And so I answered Mr. Browne, when he instanced in 

1 [ was in margin.] 2 [ and used my name/ in margin.] 

In the second charge of this day, p. 128 [of original MS. See above, p. 121.] 



Die 4. The last witness was Mr. Pryn, who says, no appeal 

Qumto. wag j e f t n ^ m , B ut t h a ^ under favour, cannot be ; for, if my 
courts refused him (which is more than I know), he might 
have appealed to the Delegates. He says, that he advised 
Adams to an action of the case ; that he blamed Lechford for 
deserting the suit; arid that he advised him to go to Mr. 
Attorney/ So here s no assistance wanting to Adams, but 
the church-officer, Mr. Dade, must have none. Yet I blame 
not Mr. Pryn, because he says he did it as his counsel. He 
says further, that when Adams was put to prefer his bill in 
his own name, that then the excommunication was pleaded in 269 
bar : but he doth not say it was pleaded by me, or my 
advice ; nor do I hear him say it was unjustly pleaded. Arid 
had not Adams been wilful, he might have taken off the ex 
communication, and then proceeded 1 as it had pleased him. 
VII. Then the charge went on against me, about the stop of 
Mr. Bagshawe, the Reader of the Middle Temple f . The 
witnesses are two lawyers, which accompanied Mr. Bagshawe 
to Lambeth, Mr. White e and Mr. Pepys. They say, that 
Mr. Bagshawe insisted upon these two points : first, that a 
Parliament might be held without bishops ; and secondly, 
that (132) bishops might not meddle in civil affairs/ My 
Lords, these things are now settled by an Act of this Parlia 
ment 11 ; but then they were not. And I conceive, under 
favour, that Mr. Bagshawe (the craziness of these times con 
sidered) might have bestowed his time better upon some 
other argument : and sure, no man can 2 think, that either 
myself, or any church-governor, could approve his judgment 
in that particular. And whereas they say, that the Lord 
Keeper Finch and the Lord Privy Seal 1 told them, that I 

1 [ proceeded originally written proceeded to his ] 

2 [ can in marg. ] 

[Edward Bagshawe began his read- man of the Committee for Eeligion. 

ings at the Temple Feb. 24, 16-ff, on He was commonly called Century 

the statute of 35 Edw. III. cap. 7, in White, from the title of his celebrated 

which he insisted on the two points book, The First Century of Malignant 

mentioned in the text. He afterwards Priests." (Wood, Ath. Ox. iii. 144, 

joined the King s party, and was com- 145.)] 

mitted to prison by the rebels. (Wood, h [16 Car. I. cap. xxvii. : repealed 

Ath. Ox. iii. 619.)] by 13 Car. II. cap. ii.] 

f [John White. He was one of the ! [Henry Montagu, first Earl of 

feoffees for impropriations, and, in Manchester.] 
1640, M.P. for Southwark, and Chair- 


was the man that complained of it to the King and the Die 
Lords/ tis most true I did so; and I think I had been Qumto * 
much to blame if I had not done it. And if, when they came 
over to Lambeth about it, they heard me tell Mr. Bagshawe 
(as they also say they did) that he should answer it in the 
High-Commission Court next term ; I humbly conceive this 
no great offence ; but out of all question no treason, to 
threaten the High-Commission to a Reader of the Inns of 

The last charge of this day was concerning the Lord Chief VIII. 
Justice Richardson j , and what he suffered for putting down 
wakes and other disorderly meetings, in Somersetshire, at the 
assizes there holden k . 

The single witness to this is Edward Richardson, (a kins 
man of the judge s, as I suppose.) He says, that complaints 
were made to the a judge of wakes and feasts of dedication ; 
that his Majesty writ letters about it to Sir Robert Philips 1 , 
and others : they certify a command comes by the Ld. Keeper 
to revoke the order next assizes. First ; tis not done. Then, 
by command from the Lds. of the Council, the judge upon 
that second command 2 revokes it ; but as tis certified, not 
fitly. In all this here s not one word that concerns me. 
Then he says, that upon this last certificate, the business 
was referred to the Lord Marshal and myself, and the judge 
put from that circuit. I cannot now remember what report 
we made : but whate er it was, the Ld. Marshal 01 agreed to 
it as well as I. Then a letter of mine was produced of 
Octob. 4, 1633 n . But the letter being openly read, nothing 
was found amiss in it. And, under your Lps . favour, I am 
still of opinion, that there is no reason the feasts should be 
taken away for some abuses in them ; and those such as every 
Justice of Peace is able by law to remedy, if he will do his 

1 [ the interlined.] 

2 [ upon that second command in margin.] 

J [Sir Thomas Eichardson,] was Speaker of King James s first Par- 

k [The documents relating to this liament, and his son M.P. for the 

question of wakes are given at great county in the Long Parliament.] 
length in Prynne s Cant. Doom, pp. m [Thomas Howard, Earl of Arun- 

128, seq.] del.] 

"Mr Re 

[Sir Robert had been M.P. for the n [To the Bishop of Bath and Wells, 
county of Somerset, in three Parlia- It will be found among the Collected 
ments ; his father, it may be added, Letters in vol. vi.] 


Die duty. " Else by this kind of proceeding ] , we may go back 

to the old cure, and remedy drunkenness by rooting out 2 
all the vines the wine of whose fruit causes it." As for 
the pretences/ which this witness spake of ; they were none 
of mine, as appears evidently by the letter itself. 

An Appendix to these, was added a letter of my secretary, 270 
Mr. Dell, to Sir John Bridgman, Chief Justice of Chester, in 
a cause of one Ed. Morris. It was (as I think it appears) 
upon an encroachment made in the Marches Court upon the 
Church : in which case I conceive by my place I may write 
to any judge for information : and there is nothing peremp 
tory in the letter. The words are, if things be rightly sug 
gested/ But howsoever, the letter is Dell s; and if he have 
done amiss in it, he is here present to answer. And it will 
be a hard business with men of honour, if, when any lord 
shall command his secretary to write, and give him directions 
for the matter, he shall afterwards 3 be answerable for every 
slip of his secretary s pen ; especially in so high a way as tis 
charged on me. But the best is, here s nothing amiss, that 
I know. 

1 [ of proceeding, in margin. Originally of law/] 

2 [ rooting out originally written taking away ] 

3 [ afterwards in marg.] 




THE first charge of this day concerned the censure, depri- I. 
vation and imprisonment of Mr. Huntly. The witnesses 
produced are four. 1644. 

1. Mr. Merifield comes on first. He says, < that himself 1 D 
was committed by the Lords of the Council ; and that there 

I said, that he the said Merifield 2 deserved to be laid by the 
heels, and to be called into the Star-Chamber/ This man 
was, as I take it, Mr. Huntly s attorney ; and if I did speak 
those words concerning him, surely his words and carriage 
deserved it : else I am confident the Lords (1 33) would not have 
committed him for a naked and 3 an orderly following of his 
client s cause ; especially in the presence of two judges, 
Justice Jones a and Justice Crook b ; who he says himself were 
present. "And this answer I gave Mr. Brown ; who in the 
sum of his charge against me omitted not this case of Mr. 
Merifield, for so was this attorney s name." 

2. The next witness is Mr. Huntly himself. He says, 
that I said unto him, that he being an ecclesiastical person, 
and in an ecclesiastical cause, ought not to decline the Church- 
censure : then followed his imprisonment, and his action for 
false imprisonment, and the rest of his proceedings/ In all 
which the High-Commission proceeded against him, and he 
proceeded against the High-Commissioners ; nothing done by 
me, or against me, in particular. So nothing of this charge 
falls upon me, but the words ; and for them, they are very far 
from offering to exempt c any clergyman, him or other, from 
the temporal laws, in things cognizable by them. But I humbly 

r that himself originally written Mr. Huntley ] 
that he the said Merifield originally written Mr. Huntly ] 
a naked and interlined.] 

a [Sir William Jones, one of the Justices of the King s Bench, the 

Justices of the Common Pleas. (Wood, author of the Keports. (Wood, Ath. 

Ath. Ox. ii. 673.)] Ox. iii. 26-29.)] 

b [Sir George Croke, one of the c exclude from the benefit 


Sexto, conceive, his oath of canonical obedience considered, that he 
ought not to decline the ecclesiastical judicature, in things 
merely ecclesiastical. And if in this my judgment I do err, yet 271 
it is error without crime : and surely, my Lords, no treason. 

3. The third witness is John Dillingham. He says, that 
Mr. Huntly moved before the Ld. Chief Justice Richardson, 
and that the judge replied, By his faith he durst not do him 
justice/ To this, my Lords, I answer : Here s never a word, 
that he durst not do him justice for fear of me; that s not 
said by the witness, and ought not by conjectures be enforced 
against me. But howsoever, if he spake those words, the 
more shame for him. He * is dead, and I will not rake into 
his 2 grave ; but if he so spake, it seems he was none of those 
judges, which Jethro advised Moses to make for the ease 
of himself, and the good of the people d . "Mr. Brown, in 
summing up of his charge, pressed this speech of the judge 
hard upon me ; which enforces me to add thus much more, 
That this witness lays it hard upon the judge, not upon me : 
for no proof is offered, that I did solicit him in that cause : 
and if he wanted courage to do justice, why sat he there *?" 

4. The fourth witness was Mr. Pit, a sworn officer ; he 
says, the order concerning Mr. Huntly was from the Council, 
and that there was then a full Board/ So this was no single 
act of mine. He says further, that he was not simply 
prohibited, but only till he had acquainted the Ld. Keeper 
with it *, or those judges whose courts it concerned/ And 
this was so ordered, as I conceive, to remedy the tedious and 
troublesome interpositions of Mr. Huntly. Where it is not 
unfit for me to inform your Lps ., that this cause of Mr. 
Huntly s was in my predecessor Archbp. Abbot his time; 
I had nothing to do in it, but as any other ordinary Commis 
sioner then present had. 

And here, at the entering upon my answers this day, I did 
in general put the Lords in mind, that nothing of late times 
was done, either in Star-Chamber or at Council-table, which 
was not done in King James and Queen Elizabeth s times, 

1 [ He originally But he ] 2 [ his interlined.] 

3 [ Mr, Brown, . . . there ] on opp. page.] * [ it, interlined.] 

Exod. xviii. 21. 


before I was born ; and that many Parliaments have been Die Sexto. 
since, and no man accused of misdemeanour for things done 
there, much less of treason : nor is there any one witness, 
that hath charged me, that that which I did, was to over 
throw the laws, or to introduce arbitrary government : " that s 
only the construction made on t at the bar ; which, as it is 
without all proof for any such intention, so I am confident 
they shall answer for it at another bar, and for something 
else in these proceedings." 

Then followed the charge about prohibitions : in which II. 
are many particulars, which I shall take in order, as the 
several witnesses charge them upon me. 

1. The first is Mr. Pry n. He says, that an. 4 Caroli he 
brought a prohibition, and that thereupon I should say, 
Doth the King give us power, and then are we prohibited ? 
Let us go and complain/ First, if this were an. 4 Caroli, it 
was long before the Article ; so that I could neither expect 
the charge, nor provide the answer. Secondly, I humbly 
conceive, there s no offence in the words. For if a prohibition 
be unjustly granted upon misinformation or otherwise, or if 
we do probably conceive it is ill grounded *, I hope tis no sin 
272 to complain of it to the King, the fountain of justice in both 
courts. 2. Yea ; but he says further, that I said I would lay 
him by the heels that brought the next/ And this Mr. Burton 
witnesses with him. First, if I did say so, they were but a 
few hasty words : for upon second thoughts it was not done. 
Next, I desire your Lordships to consider what manner of 
witness Mr. Burton is ; who confesses here before your Lord 
ships, that he brought the next with a purpose to tempt me : 
you know whose office that is ; and so Mr. Burton hath 
abundantly showed himself, and proclaimed his religion. 

(134) 3. As for Mr. Comes 6 ; he says just the same with 
Mr. Pryn, and I give the same answer. 

Then about taking down of a pew in a church in London, 
(my notes are uncertain for the name,) which pew was set 
above the communion-table ; that I required to have it pulled 
down j that they came to me to have an order for it ; and 

1 [ or if . . . grounded, in marg. ] 

e f. Combs. 


Die Sexto, that thereupon 1 should say, You desire an order of court, 
that you may have it to show, and get a prohibition : but I 
will break the back of prohibitions, or they shall break mine/ 
And this is jointly witnessed by, 4. Mr. Pocock, and 5. Mr. 
Langham : and this they say was thirteen or fourteen years ago. 
Excellent memories, that can punctually swear words so long 
after ! But, my Lords, I confess to your Lps., I could never 
like, that seats should be set above the communion-table : if 
that be any error in me, be it so. For the words, I did not 
speak them of prohibitions in general, but of such as I did 
conceive very illegal; as, for aught I yet know, this must 
have been. " And this was the answer which I gave Mr. 
Brown, when in summing up the charge he instanced in 
this against me." 6. To these Rouland Tomson adds new 
words; "That I wondered who durst grant a prohibition, 
the High-Commission Court being above all/ But he con 
fesses, he knows not the time when this was spoken. Let 
him look to his oath, for I am as confident, he knows not the 
thing. And I further believe, that neither he nor any the 
rest of my accusers think me so ignorant as to say, the 
High-Commission Court was above all/ 

7. Francis Nicolas says, that about four years since he 
delivered a prohibition, and was committed for it/ 8. To this, 
Quaterman comes in, and says more than Nicolas himself: 
for he says, he delivered it in upon a stick, and was com 
mitted for it/ First, if he were committed, it was not for 
bringing the prohibition, but for his unmannerly delivery of 
it ; and to reach it into the court upon a stick to call the 
people to see it, was no handsome way of delivery. And one 
that brought a prohibition (whether this man or no, I cannot 
certainly say) threw it with that violent scorn into the court, 
that it bounded on the table, and hit me on the breast, as I 
sat in court. Howsoever, his commitment was the act of the 
court, not mine : and for Quaterman, he is an exasperated 
man against me and that court; as hath appeared to the 
world many ways. 

9. Mr. Edwards was called up next ; and he says, it was 
a common thing to lay them by the heels which brought 
prohibitions/ And they were commonly brought by bold 
impudent men, picked out of purpose to affront the court . 


273 And then if the court made their imprisonment as common Die Sexto, 
as they their rudeness, where s the fault? And I pray mark, 
this is still the act of the court, not mine. 

10. Mr. Welden says, that 1 { there was a command given 
to lay hold of a man which brought a prohibition : but more 
he says not. Nor did he offer to make himself judge of the 
justice of the court in that behalf. And considering what 
affronts have been put upon the Court of High-Commission 
by the bringers of prohibitions, I hope it shall not be 
accounted a crime to stay him that brings it, till the prohi 
bition be seen, and considered. 

11. The next witness is Mr. Ward : " and he is an angry 
witness, for his cause before-mentioned about simony { ." 
That which he says is, that an. 1638, he that brought a 
prohibition in a cause of Mr. Foetrought s 2 was laid by the 
heels : but he himself confesses, the court then declared, 
that they were affronted by him : and then he was punished 
for that misdemeanour in his carriage, not for bringing the 
prohibition. He says further, { that I directed some com 
missioners to attend the judges about it, and that the party 
had no benefit by his prohibition/ For my directing 3 attend 
ance upon the judges, I think I did what well became me : 
for there came a rule before the prohibition, which required 
the court so 4 to do; "and Mr. Pry n objected, because this 
was not done ; and now I am accused, because 5 I gave direc 
tion to do it." And if the party had no benefit by his pro 
hibition, it must needs follow, that either the judges were 
satisfied by our information of the cause ; or, if not, that they 
did Mr. Foetrought the wrong, and not we. 

12. The last witness about prohibitions was Mr. Wheeler. 
He says, that in a sermon of mine long since, I used these 
words : They which grant prohibitions to the disturbance of 
the Church s right, God will prohibit their entrance into the 
kingdom of heaven : and he says, (135) he writ down the 

Originally written, that a man which brought a prohibition was ] 

in a cause of Mr. Foetroughts/ in marg.] 

directing originally written sending ] 

the court so originally written me so ] 

The words I am accused here inaccurately repeated.] 

[See above, p. 128. ] 


Die Sexto, words, that he might remember them. If this gentleman 
will tell me what text I then preached on, I will look upon 
my sermon (if that with my other papers be not taken from 
me) and show the place. In the meantime, with that limita 
tion with which he confesses I spake them, I conceive there 
is no fault at all in the words. For it will be found no small 
fault in judges to grant prohibitions to the disturbance of the 
rights of the Church, which no law of God or man warrants 
them to do. So the words I spake must needs be understood 
of illegal prohibitions. For they which are legal, do only 
stop the Church from doing wrong, but do no wrong to the 
Church by disturbing her rights. " Mr. Browne charged 
this sermon note upon me also, and I gave him this answer. 
Nevertheless, I cannot but be sorry to hear it from Mr. 
Wheeler s own mouth , that he was so careful to write this 
passage, and so ready to come to witness it against me ; con 
sidering how many years I have known him, and how freely 
he hath often come to my table, and been welcome to me ; 
yet never told me this passage in my sermon troubled him. 
It seems some malignity or other laid it up against this 
wet day." 

Here, having thus answered all particulars, I humbly 
craved leave of their Lordships, to inform them some few 
things concerning prohibitions. 1. As first, that there was a 
great contestation about them, between my predecessor, 274 
Archbp. Bancroft, and the then judges, and this before King 
James and the Lords of the Council; and Mr. Attorney 
Hobarts pleaded for the Church against them. Sir Henry 
Martin gave me copies of all those papers on both sides. No 
final end made, that I could ever hear of. This calling them 
all in question was far more than ever was done by me, or in 
my time ; and yet no accusation at all, much less any of 
treason 2 , put up against Archbishop Bancroft for this. 
2. Secondly, I have here papers attested of all the prohibi 
tions which have been admitted in my Courts of Arches and 

1 [ So the words . . . mouth, on opposite page. The passage originally 
stood, to do. But I am sorry to hear from his own mouth, that &c.] 
[ much less any of treason/ in margin.] 

[Sir Henry Hobart, afterwards Pleas; the ancestor of the Earls of 
Lord Chief Justice of the Common Buckinghamshire.] 


Audience: and I find there are as many (if not 1 more) Die Sexto, 
admitted in my seven years time, as in any seven years of 
my predecessor, Archbishop Abbot. And these papers I 
delivered into the court 11 . As for the High-Commission, the 
records are all taken from us ; else I make no doubt, but it 
would soon appear by them, that as many have been admitted 
there also 2 . 3. Thirdly, there is a great difference touching 
prohibitions, and the sending of them, since the times of 
Reformation, and before. For before, the Bishops Courts 
were kept under a foreign power, and there were then weighty 
reasons for prohibitions, both in regard of the King s power, 
and the subjects indemnity. But since the Reformation, all 
power exercised in the spiritual courts is from the King, as 
well as the temporal ; so that now there neither is, nor can 
be, so much cause as formerly was. And yet, all that I did 
humbly and earnestly desire was, that some known bounds 
might be set to each court, that the subject might not, to his 
great trouble and expense, be hurried, as now he was, from 
one court to another. And here I desired a salvo, till I might 
bring Archbishop Parker s book 1 , to show his judgment in 
this point, in the beginning of the Reformation, if it shall be 
thought needful : " according to whose judgment (and he 
proves it at large) there is open wrong done to the ecclesias 
tical jurisdiction by prohibitions 3 ." 

The next charge is about my undue taking of gifts : a charge III. 
which, I confess, I did not think to meet here. And I must 
and do humbly desire your Lps. to remember, that till this 
day I have not been accused, in the least for doing anything 
corruptly : and if I would have had anything to do in the 
base dirty business of bribery, I needed not have been in 
such want as now I am. But my innocency is far more to 
my comfort, than any wealth so gotten could have been. For 
I cannot forget that of Job, that fire shall consume the 

[ if not interlined; originally or ] 

2 [ As for ... also. on opposite page.] 

3 [ in the beginning . . . prohibitions inserted afterwards ; from the word 
Information on opposite page ; the words, if it shall be thought needful 
were originally written after the word point, and then erased.] 

h Sir Timothy Baldwin hath these vita Joh. Stafford, pp. 326, 327, [p. 
papers. W. S. A. C. 431. Lond. 1729.] 

Ma. Parkeri Antiqu. Britan. in 


Die Sexto, tabernacles of bribery V "And in the Roman story, when 
P. Rutilius, a man summa innocentia, of greatest integrity, 
was accused, condemned, and banished ; tis observed by the 
story, that he suffered all this, not for bribery, of which he 
was not guilty, but ob invidiam,, for envy 1 ; against which, 
when it rages, no innocency, no worth of any man is able to 

1. But to come to the particulars ; the first is the case of 
Sir Edward Gresham s son, unhappily married against his 
father s will ; a suit in the High- Commission about it ; and 
that ( there he had 1 but fifty pounds damages given him. 
That was no fault of mine ; my vote gave him more, but it 
was carried against me. The bond of two hundred pounds, 
which was taken according to course in the court 111 , was 275 
demanded of me by Sir Edward, to help himself that way ; 
and tis confessed I granted it : but 2 then tis charged, that 
in my reference to Sir John Lambe, to deliver him the bond, 
I required him to demand one-half of the forfeiture of the 3 
bond, toward the repair of St. Paul s. Tis true, I did so. 
But first, I desire it may be considered, that it was wholly in 
my power, whether I would have delivered him the bond or 
not. Secondly, that upon this gross abuse, I might have 
sued the bond in my own name, and bestowed the money 
upon what charitable uses I had thought fit. Thirdly, that 
I did nothing herein, but what the letters patent for repair 
of S. Paul s give me power (136) to do. Fourthly, that this 
is the third time S. Paul s is urged against me : which I am 
not sorry for, because I desire, since tis once moved, it may 
be sifted to the uttermost. And whereas, to make all ecclesi 
astical proceedings the more odious, it was urged, that the 
rubric in the Common-Prayer Book mentions no licence, but 
asking of banns ; that rubric is to be understood, where no 
licence is granted 11 : for else no licence at all for marriage 
without banns-asking can be good ; which is against the 
common botn law and practice of the kingdom. 

1 [ had interlined.] 2 [ but originally written but that ] 
3 [ forfeiture of the in margin.] 

k Job xv. 34. do not occur.] 

Calvis. Chro. p. 251. [Prancof. ad m Can. Ecc. Ang. 101. 
Oder. 1620. The words, ob invidiam, " Can. 62. Ecc. Ang. 


2. The second particular was charged by one Mr. Stone, Die Sexto, 
of London , who said, he sent into Lambeth two butts 1 of 
sack, in a cause of some Chester-men, whom it was then in 
my power to relieve, and mitigate their fine set upon them in 
the High-Commission at York 2 , about Mr. Pryn s entertain 
ment, as he passed that way ; and that this sack was sent in 
before my composition with him, what should be mitigated, 
and so before my return of the fine mitigated into the ex 
chequer/ The business, my Lords, was thus. His Majesty 
having taken 3 the repair of the west end of S. Paul s to 
himself, granted me to that end all the fines in the High- 
Commission Court, both here and at York, and left the power 
of mitigation in me, The Chester-men which this witness 
speaks of, were deeply sentenced at York, for some misde 
meanours about Mr. Pryn, then lately sentenced in the Star- 
Chamber. One or more of them were debtors 4 to this Mr. 
Stone, to the value of near three thousand pounds, as he said. 
These men, for fear of the sentence, kept themselves close, 
and gave Mr. Stone to know, how it was with them ; and that 
if he could not get me to moderate the fine 5 , they would 
away, and save themselves : for they had now heard the 
power was in me. Upon this, Mr. Stone, to save his own 
debt of three thousand pounds, sends his son-in-law, Mr. 
Wheat, and Dr. Baillie, men that were bred in the College of 
S. John, under me, and had ever since good interest in me, 
to desire my favour 6 . I at first thought this a pretence, and 
was willing to preserve to S. Paul s as much as fairly I might : 
but at last, upon their earnest pleading, that the men were 
not rich, and that Mr. Stone was like, without any fault of 
his, to 7 be so much damnified ; I mitigated their fines, which 
were in all above a thousand pounds, to two hundred. I 
had great thanks of all hands ; and was told from the Chester- 
men, that they heartily wished I had had the hearing of their 

1 [ butts originally written pipes ] 2 [ in the . . . York, in marg.] 

3 [ taken originally written undertaken ] 

4 [ debtors originally written creditors ] 5 [ fine interlined.] 

6 [ to desire my favour. in margin.] 

7 [ to originally written was like to ] 

[This story of Mr. Stone has been 404; the notes on which passage may 
related before. See vol. iii. pp. 402 be consulted.] 


Die Sexto, cause from the beginning. While Mr. Wheat and his brother 
Dr. Baillie, were soliciting me for favour to Mr. Stone, he 
thinks upon sending sack into my house, and comes to my 
steward about it. My steward acquaints me with. it. I gave 276 
him absolute command not to receive it, nor anything from 
any mail that had business before me : so he refuses to admit 
of any. Mr. Stone presses him again, and tells him he had 1 
no relation to the Chester-men s cause; but would give it for 
the great favour I had always showed to his son-in-law : but 
still I commanded my steward to receive none. When Mr. 
Stone saw he could not fasten it, he watches a time when 
my steward was out of town, and myself at Court, and brings 
in his sack, and tells the yeoman of my wine-cellar he had 
leave to lay it in. My steward comes home ; finds the sack 
in the cellar ; tells me of it : I commanded it should be taken 
out, and carried back. Then Mr. Stone comes 2 ; entreats he 
may not be so disgraced ; protests as before, that he did it 3 
merely for my great favour to his son-in-law ; and that he 
had no relation to the Chester-men s business : and so after 
he protested to myself, meeting me in a morning, as I was 
going over to the Star-Chamber. Yet afterwards this reli 
gious professor (for so he carries himself) goes home, and 
puts the price of the sack upon the Chester-men s account. 
Hereupon they complain to the House of Commons, and 
Stone is their witness. 

This is the truth of this business, as I shall answer it to 
God. " And whether this do not look like a thing plotted 
by the faction so much embittered against me, let under 
standing men judge." Mr. Wheat, his son-in-law, was 
present in court, and there avowed that he transacted 4 the 
business with me, and that he went not out of town, till I had 
agreed to the mitigation ; that in all that time there was no 
tender of sack or anything else unto me ; and he, and Dr. 
Baillie , (137) the only men with whom I transacted the whole 
business. " And so much could Dr. Baillie also witness, but 
that, as the times are, I could not bring him from Oxford." 

1 [ he had originally written it had ] 

2 [ comes; originally comes to me ; ] 

3 that he did it in margin.] 

[ transacted originally written performed ] 

s [ and Dr. Bailie, on opp. page. Originally written, he was the ] 


With Mr. Stone himself I never treated. For my steward. Die Sexto, 
he is dead three years since, who could have been my witness 
clean thorough the business. And when I pressed Mr. Stone 
at the bar with the protestation which he made to me, that 
he had no relation herein to the Chester-men, he, that remem 
bered every circumstance else, said he remembered not that. 
Then I offered to take my voluntary oath of the truth of it ; 
but that was not admitted. Then it was pressed, that this 
bribe must needs be before the agreement, for he says, the 

sack was sent in to my house *, and the mitigation 

of the fine into the exchequer not till But that is 

nothing : for my agreement was passed, and I meddled no 
more with it. Yea, but he says, that Mr. Holford, my 
servant P, had forty pound more than I agreed upon, before 
he would finish their business/ Mr. Holford was the King s 
officer for those returns into the exchequer : and if, after my 
agreement made, he either unduly delayed their business, or 
corruptly took any money from them, he is living, and must 
answer for his own fault : me it cannot concern, who did not 
so much as know of it. 

"Mr. Wheat having thus testified in open Parliament, 
before the Lords, was within a day or two called before the 
Committee ; there reexamined in private, and very strictly, 
277 touching the time of my agreement made ; then (not without 
some harshness) commanded not to depart the town, till he 
heard further from them. This himself afterwards told me. 
Hereupon I resolved to call him again for further evidence, 
and if I saw cause, to acquaint the Lords with this usage. 
And I did call upon it divers times after ; but one delay or 
other was found, and I could never obtain it. And such a 
kind of calling my witnesses to a private after-reckoning 2 is 
that which was never offered any man in Parliament. And 
here Mr. Brown, in summing up my charge, did me a great 
deal of right : for neither to the Lords, nor in the House of 
Commons, did he vouchsafe so much as to name this false, 
base, and unworthy charge, of which my greatest enemies are 
ready to acquit me V ; 

1 [* to my house, in margin.] 

2 [ a private after-reckoning in margin. Originally account ] 

3 [ And here . . . acquit me. added afterwards.] 

P [Benjamin Holford was bequeathed 20/. in the Archbishop s will.] 
LAUD. VOL. iv. L 


Die Sexto. 3. The third particular was charged by one Mr. Delbridge ; 
who says, he was oppressed at the Council-table by the Ld. 
Keeper Finch : that he was advised by Mr. Watkins, to give 
my secretary Mr. Dell money, to get my hand to a petition 
to the Ld. Keeper, who, he said, would not oppose me : that 
Dell took of him one hundred and fifty pounds, and procured 
my hand to his petition/ I remember nothing of this busi 
ness, and it lies wholly upon my secretary; who being my 
solicitor, is here present in court, and desires he may answer 
the scandal. There s no touch at all upon me, but that (he 
says) my secretary got my hand to his petition to the Lord 
Keeper. This petition of his was either just, or unjust. If 
just, I committed no fault in setting my hand to it : if unjust, 
he must confess himself a dishonest man, to offer to get my 
hand, to help to bolster out his injustice: and yet if the 
injustice of it were varnished over with fair pretences, and so 
kept from my knowledge ; the crime is still his own, and 
nothing mine, but an error at most. As for Mr. Watkins, 
he did me much wrong, if he sent any man to my house on 
such an errand. 

" Here my Secretary had leave to speak ; denied the whole 
business ; and produced Mr. Hollys, with whom it was said 
the hundred and fifty pounds before named should be depo 
sited ; who (to my remembrance) said, he knew of no such 

4. The fourth instance was, a bond for the payment of 
money as a fine : the bond found in Sir Jo. Lamb s chamber, 
with a note upon the back of it, for one hundred pound 
received, and Sir John by my direction was to call for the 
rest. And here it was said, that I used the name of St. Paul s 
in an illegal way to get money ; which might well have been 
spared. For (as is aforesaid) I had a Broad Seal, which gave 
me all fines in the High-Commission Court, to the repairing 
of the 1 west end of St. Paul s, and with power to mitigate. 
And the fines are the King s, and he may give them by law. 
The Broad Seal (138) is in the hands of Mr. Holford, who is 
thereby appointed receiver of all such fines : but is upon 
record to be seen ; and if it be doubted, I humbly desire a 
salvo till the record can be taken out, and showed. But I 

1 [ repairing of the in margin.] 


presume these gentlemen have seen it : and commutations for Die Sexto. 
such crimes as Sir James Price s was, are according to law, 
and the ancient custom and practice in this kingdom ; espe- 
278 cially, where men of quality are the offenders. And the 
power of commuting is as legal in that court as any other : 
and if that be doubted, I humbly desire my counsel may 
argue it. 

5. The fifth instance was a charge concerning a lease in 
Lancashire held in three lives by Sir Ralph Aston 1. "Tis 
said by his son Mr. Aston (the only witness in the cause), 
that { I, by power at Chester and York, and the High-Com 
mission here 1 , being landlord in right of my archbishopric, 
did violently wrest this lease of the rectory of Whally, in 
Lancashire 1 , out of his hands against law, and made him 
take 2 a lease for years, and pay a great fine besides, and other 
fines besides toward the repair of St. Paul s, and raised the 
rent sixty pound 3 / Truly, my Lords, I am not any whit 
solicitous to answer this charge. I challenged this lease as 
void, and had great reason so to do, both for the invalidity of 
the lease itself, and the unworthiness of the tenant, both to 
me and my See. If in the preparations for trial at law, the 
judge at Chester (altogether unknown to me, and unlaboured 
by me) did say (as Mr. Aston says he did), that for higher 
powers above he durst not/ he was the more unworthy. 
And for York, I needed no power there; for I resolved to 
have him called into the High-Commission here ; which was 
after done. 

This gentleman his son came to me about the lease : I told 
him plainly, it was void in law, and that I meant to over 
throw it ; that if his father would surrender, I would renew 
it for years at a reasonable rate ; but if he put me to expense 
in law, I would secure myself, as well as legally I might. 

1 [ and the High- Commission here, in margin.] 

2 [ him take originally him pay ] 

3 [ and raised . . . pound. in margin.]; 

i [The name is written Aston in burn, and Eochdale, formerly belong- 

the MS. ; but the person referred to ing to the monastery of Whalley, came 

is Sir Ralph Assheton, of Lever, created into the possession of the See of Canter- 

a Baronet June 28, 1620.] bury, Aug. 31, 1547. See Strype s 

r [The rectories of Whalley, Black- Cranmer, pp. 403, 910.] 



Die Sexto. He replied, that Mr. Solicitor Littleton s (for so then he 
was) said, he durst not be against me. And there was good 
reason for it ; he was my counsel, and feed in that particular. 
And what a poor evasion was this ! Were there no other 
lawyers for him, because Mr. Solicitor was for me? The 
truth is, all that ever I did in this business, was not only with 
the knowledge, but by the advice of my counsel, which were 
Mr. Solicitor Littleton and Mr. Herbert *. 

At last this gentleman submitted himself and the cause ; 
and if, as he says, l Dr. Eden" persuaded him to it/ that s 
nothing to me. As for the fine, I referred the moderation 
of it wholly to my counsel. They pitched upon sixteen hun 
dred pounds, and gave such days of payment, as that a good 
part is yet unpaid : and this sum was little above one year s 
rent : for the parsonage is known to be well worth thirteen 
hundred pound a year, if not more. And after the business 
was settled, my Lord Wimbleton v came to me, and gave me 
great thanks for preserving this gentleman, being, as he said, 
his kinsman, whom he confessed it was in my power to ruin. 
For the raising of the rent sixty pounds ; it was to 
add means to the several curates to the chapels of ease : 
and I had no reason to suffer Sir Ralph Aston to go away 
with so much profit, and leave the curates both upon my 
conscience and my purse. And for his fine to St. Paul s, 
I gave him all the ease I could. But since his son will force 
it from me ; he was accused of adultery with divers w r omen, 
and confessed all : and whither that fine went, and by what 
authority, I have already showed. And thus much more, 
my Lords, at Mr. Bridgman s vv entreaty, I turned this lease 
into lives again without fine * : but since I have this reward 279 

1 [* without fine : in margin.] 

8 [Afterwards Lord Littleton, and the Netherlands.] 

Keeper of the Great Seal, in the room v [Orlando Bridgman, son of Dr. 

of Lord Finch.] John Bridgman, Bishop of Chester. 

1 [Afterwards Sir Edward Herbert, He appears to have been the Arch- 
Solicitor and Attorney General, and bishop s legal adviser, and to have 
Lord Keeper.] held his courts. (See Archbishop 

u [Dr. Thomas Eden, Master of Tri- Laud s Berkshire Benefactions, pp. 

nity Hall, Cambridge, Chancellor of 28, 49.) At the Restoration he was 

Ely, Professor of Law in Gresham made Sergeant-at-Law ; afterwards 

College.] successively Lord Chief Baron of the 

T [Edward Cecil, created Viscount Exchequer, Lord Chief Justice of the 

Wimbledon July 25, 1626. He had Common Pleas ; and Lord Keeper on 

distinguished himself in the war in the removal of Lord Clarendon.] 


for it, I wish with all my heart I had not done it. For I am Die Sexto. 
confident, in such a case of right, your Lordships would have 
left me to the law, and more I would not have asked. And 
I think this (though entreated into it) was my greatest error 
in the business. 

(139) 6. The last instance was about the conversion of some 
money to St. Paul s, out of administrations x : by name, 
two thousand poimds taken out of Wimark a estate, and five 
hundred out of Mr. Greye s/ First, whatsoever was done in 
this kind, I have the Broad- Seal to warrant it. And for 
Mr. Wimark s estate, all was done according to law, and all 
care taken for his kindred. And if I had not stirred in the 
business, four men, all strangers to his kindred, would have 
made themselves by a broken will executors, and swept all 
away from the kindred. Secondly, for Mr. Gray s estate, 
after as odious an expression of it as could be made, and as 
void of truth as need to be, the proceedings were confessed 
to be orderly and legal, and the charge deserted. 

Then there was a fling at Sir Charles Caesar s getting of 
the Mastership of the Rolls y for money, and that I was his 
means for it and so it was thence * inferred, that I sold 
places of judicature, or helped to sell them. For this they 
produced a paper under my hand. But when they had 
thrown all the dirt they could upon me, they say they did 
only show what probabilities they had for it, and what reason 
they had to lay it in the end of the fourth original Article ; 
and so deserted it. And well they might : for I never had 
more hand in this business, than that when he came to me 
about it 2 , I told him plainly, as things then stood, that 3 
place was not like to go without more money than I thought 
any wise man would give for it : nor doth the paper mentioned 
say any more, but that I informed the Lord Treasurer what 
had passed between us. 

1 [ it was thence in margin.] 2 [ it, originally the business, ] 

3 [ that originally I told him that ] 

z [In the Commission for the repair iii. 175.] 

of S. Paul s, power was given to r [Sir Charles Caesar was appointed 

apply the goods of intestate persons to Master of the Rolls, March 30, 1639. 

this purpose. See Rymer, Feed. VIII. (Rymer, Feed. IX. ii. 248.)] 



Die THIS day ended, I was ordered to appear again, April 4, 

Septimo. 1544 ^nd received a note from the Gommittee, under 

April l, Sergeant Wild s hand, dated April 1, that they meant to 

proceed next upon the fifth and sixth original Articles, and 

upon the ninth additional j which follow in hcec verba. 

The fifth original : He hath traitorously caused a Book of 
Canons to be composed and published, and those Canons 
to be put in execution, without any lawful warrant and 
authority in that behalf; in which pretended Canons 
many matters are contained contrary to the King s pre 
rogative, to the fundamental laws and statutes of this * 
realm, to the right of Parliament, to the propriety and 
liberty of the subjects, and matters tending to sedition, 
and of dangerous consequence, and to the establishment 
of a vast, unlawful, and presumptuous power, in himself 
and his successors : many of the which Canons, by the 
practice of the said Archbishop, were surreptitiously 
passed in the late Convocation, without due consideration 
and debate ; others, by fear and compulsion, were sub 
scribed unto by the prelates and clerks there assembled, 
which had never been voted and passed in the Convoca 
tion, as they ought to have been. And the said Archbishop 
hath contrived and endeavoured to assure and confirm the 
unlawful and exorbitant power, which he hath usurped 
and exercised over his Majesty s subjects, by a wicked 
and ungodly oath in one of the said pretended Canons 
enjoined to be taken by all the clergy and many of the 
laity of this kingdom. 

The sixth original : 

He hath traitorously assumed to himself a papal and tyran 
nical power, both in ecclesiastical and temporal matters, 

1 [ this in margin. Originally the ] 


over his Majesty s subjects in this realm of England, and Die 
in other places, to the disherison of the Crown, dishonour e P timo> 
of his Majesty, and derogation of his supreme authority 
in ecclesiastical matters. And the said Archbishop claims 
the King s ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as incident to his 
episcopal and (140) archiepiscopal office in this kingdom, 
and doth deny the same to bt derived from the Crown of 
England, which he hath accordingly exercised, to the 
high contempt of his Royal Majesty, and to the destruc 
tion of divers of the King s liege people, in their persons 
and estates. 

The ninth additional Article : 

That in or about the month of May, 1641 & , presently after 
the dissolution of the last Parliament, the said Archbishop, 
for the ends and purposes aforesaid, caused a Synod or 
Convocation of the Clergy to be held for the several pro 
vinces of Canterbury and York ; wherein were made and 
established, by his means and procurement, divers Canons 
and Constitutions ecclesiastical, contrary to the laws of 
this realm, the rights and privileges of Parliament, and 
281 liberty and property of the subject tending also to sedi 

tion, and of dangerous consequence. And, amongst other 
things, the said Archbishop caused a most dangerous and 
illegal oath to be therein made and contrived ; the tenor 
whereof followeth in these words : That I, A. B. y do 
swear, that I do approve the doctrine and discipline or 
government established in the Church of England, as 
containing all things necessary to salvation : and that 
I will not endeavour, by myself or any other, directly or 
indirectly, to bring in any Popish doctrine, contrary to 
that which is so established : nor will I ever give my 
consent to alter the government of this Church by arch 
bishops, bishops, deans, and archdeacons, fyc., as it stands 
now established, and as by right it ought to stand; nor 
yet ever to subject it to the usurpations and superstitions 
of the See of Rome. And all these things I do plainly 
and sincerely acknowledge and swear, according to the 
plain and common sense and understanding of the same 
* 1640/ Rush. 


Die words, without any equivocation or mental evasion, or 

Septimo. secret reservation whatsoever. And this I do heartily, 

willingly, and truly, upon the faith of a Christian : So 
help me God in Jesus Christ. Which oath the said Arch 
bishop himself did take, and caused divers other ministers 
of the Church to take the same, upon pain of suspension 
and deprivation of their livings, and other severe penalties ; 
and did also cause Godfrey, then Bishop of Gloucester, to 
be committed to prison for refusing to subscribe to the 
said Canons, and to take the said oath ; and afterward 
the said Bishop submitting himself to take the said oath, 
he was set at liberty. 

April 4, On Thursday, April 4, I was again brought to the House, 
made a sufficient scorn and gazing-stock to the people ; and 
after I had waited some hours, was sent back, by reason of 
other business, unheard : but ordered to appear again Mon- 

April 8. day, April 8. Then I appeared again, and was used by the 
basest of the people as before. I did not appear any day but 
it cost me six or seven pound : I grew into want. This made 
my counsel, and other friends, to persuade me, the next time 
I had admittance to speak, to move the Lords again for some 
necessary allowance; notwithstanding my former petition 
had been rejected. This advice I meant to have followed 
that day : but after some hours attendance, I was sent back 
again unheard, and ordered to come again on Thursday, 

April 11. April 11. This day I did not come to the House; a war 
rant being sent to the Tower, which stayed me till Tuesday, 
April 16. 


282 CAP. XXIX. 


THEN I appeared, and (as I remember) here Mr. Maynard Die 
left [off,] (save that now and then he interposed, both in the eptimo - 
reply and otherwise,) and Mr. Nicolas, a man of another 
temper, undertook the managing of the evidence. And the I. 
first charge was concerning the late Canons, which he said 
were against law to sit a , the (141) Parliament being dis 
solved/ No, my Lords, nothing against law that I know. 
For we were called to sit in Convocation, by a different writ 
from that which called us as bishops to the Parliament/ 
And we could not rise, till his Majesty sent us another writ 
to discharge us ; and this is well known to the judges, and 
the other lawyers here present * : so we continued sitting, 
though the Parliament rose. Nor was this sitting continued 
by any advice or desire of mine. For I humbly desired a 
writ to dissolve us : but the best counsel then present, both of 
judges, and other lawyers, assured the King we might legally 
sit. And here is a copy attested under their hands b . 

Then he urged out of my Diary, at May 29, 1640, that 
I acknowledged there were seventeen canons made, which 
I did hope would be useful to the Church c / Tis true, my 
Lords, I did hope so. And had I not hoped it, 1 would never 
have passed my consent unto them. And when I writ this, 
there was nothing done or said against them. And if, by 
any inadvertency or human frailty, anything erroneous or 
unfit have slipped into those Canons, I humbly beseech your 
Lps. to remember, it is an article of the Church of England, 

1 [ and this . * . present : in margin. ] 

a lege, For the making of which b Vide supra, post init. [vol. iii. 
he said it was against law for the p. 286.] 
Convocation to sit. e [Vol. iii. p. 236.] 


Die that General Councils may err d / and therefore this national 

Synod may mistake. And that since (if any error be) it is 
not wilful ; it may be rectified, and in charity passed by. 

For the Bishop of Gloucester s refusing to subscribe the 
Canons, and take the oath ; which is here said by the 
counsel, but no proof offered : the truth is this. He first 
pretended (to avoid his subscription) that we could not sit, 
the Parliament risen. He was satisfied in this by the judges 
hands. Then he pretended the oath. But that which stuck 
in his stomach, was the Canon about suppressing of the 
growth of Popery 6 / For, coming over to me to Lambeth 
about that business, he told me he would be torn with wild 
horses before he would subscribe that canon. I gave him 
the best advice I could ; but his carriage was such, when he 
came into the Convocation, that I was forced to charge him 
openly with it, and he as freely acknowledged it : as there is 
plentiful proof of bishops and other divines then present. 
And for his Lp s. being after put to take the oath/ (which 
was also urged,) it was thus. I took myself bound to 
acquaint his Majesty with this proceeding of my Ld. of 
Gloucester s, and did so. But all that was after done about 
his commitment first, and his release after, when he had 
taken the oath, was done openly at a full Council-table, and 
his Majesty present, and can no way be charged upon me, as 283 
my act. For it was my duty to let his Majesty know it, to 
prevent further danger then also discovered. But I am here 
to defend myself, not to accuse any man else. 

Next he urged, that I had interlined the original copy of 
the Canons with my own hand/ But this is clearly a mis 
take, if not a wilful one. For perusing the place, I find the 
interlining is not in my hand, but my hand is to it; as 
(I humbly conceive) it was fit it should. And the words are 
in the Ratification of the Canons a , and therefore were neces 
sarily to be in the original, howsoever slipped in the writing 
of them. 

As for the oath so bitterly spoken of at the Bar, and in the 

1 [ Canons, originally Articles/] 

Art, 21. Can. 3. 


Articles ; either it was made according to law, or else we Die 
were wholly misled by precedent, and that such as was never Se P timo - 
excepted against. For in the Canons made in King James 
his time, there was an oath made against simony f , and an 
oath for churchwardens V "and an oath about licences for 
marriages h , and an oath for judges in ecclesiastical courts * i 
and some of these oaths as dangerous as this is accounted 
to be. And all these established by no other authority than 
these late were/ And yet neither those Canons nor those 
oaths were ever declared illegal by any ensuing Parliament, 
nor the makers of them accused of any crime, much less of 
treason. So that we had in this Synod unblamed precedent 
for what we did, as touching our power of doing it. 

(142) But, after all this, he said he would pass these things 
by, (that is, when he had made them as odious as he could,) 
and would charge nothing upon me but the votes of both 
Houses, namely, That these Canons contain matters con 
trary to the King s prerogative, to the fundamental laws of 
the realm, to the rights of Parliaments, to the propriety and 
liberty of the subject, and matters tending to sedition, and 
of dangerous consequence/ So these votes of the honourable 
Houses made so long after, (and therefore cannot well be an 
evidence against the making of that which was done so long 
before,) is the task lying now upon me to answer; which, 
with your Lps\ honourable favour, I shall in all humbleness 
address myself unto. 

Before these words were well out of my mouth, Mr. Nicolas 
with much earnestness interposed ; That he hoped their Lps. 
would not endure that the solemn votes of both Houses 
should be called into question by any delinquent, and was 
sure the House of Commons would not endure it. Upon 
this the Lords presently gave their resolution, that I might 
not speak to anything that was declared by votes ; but was 
to answer only to the fact, whether I made the Canons or 
no *. To this, with leave humbly asked, I replied, That 
if I might not answer to the votes, I must yield the evidence; 

1 [ declared by ... or no. in margin. Originally voted. ] 

{ Can. 40. h Can. 103. 

Can. 118. * Can. 127. 


Die which I could not do : and that if I might answer, I must 

Septimo. Dispute the votes, which their Lps. resolved I should not do : 
that then I was in a perplexity, and must necessarily offend 
either way. And therefore humbly besought them, to con 
sider not my case only, but their own too. For I did con 
ceive it would concern them in honour, as much as me in 
safety : that no charge might be brought against me in that 
great Court, to which I should not be suffered to make 284 
answer: or else that they in honour would not judge me for 
that, to which my answer is not suffered to be given. With 
this, that all these Canons were made in open and full Con 
vocation, and are acts of that body, and cannot be ascribed 
to me, though president of that Synod, but are the joint acts 
of the whole body : so by me they were not made ; which is 
my answer. 

" And according to this I framed my answer to Mr. Brown s 
summary of my charge, both touching the Canons in general, 
and concerning the instance before given about the Bishop of 
Gloucester 1 . 

ff But though I was not allowed there to make any further 
answer in defence of these Canons; nor can hold it fit to 
insert here so long an answer as these votes require ; I hum 
bly desire the courteous reader, if he please, to look upon the 
answer which I have made to a speech of Mr. Nathaniel 
Fynes k , in the House of Commons, against these Canons. 
In which answer, I humbly conceive, I have satisfied what 
soever these votes contain against them. Howsoever, I can 
not but observe this in present. The words in the sixth 
original Article are as they are above cited : { That the late 
Canons contain matters contrary to the King s prerogative, 
the laws/ &c. But in the ninth additional, all the rest of 
the exceptions are in against them, but these words about 
4 the King s prerogative are quite left out l . I would fain 
know, if I could, what is the reason of this omission in these 
added Articles. Is it for shame, because there was a pur 
pose to charge me, (as Sergeant Wild did in his speech the 

1 [ And according . . . Gloucester. on opposite page.] 

k Made December 14, 1640, and p. 105. 
extant in Eushworth, par. iii. vol. i. Et Art. ii. additionalis. 


first day,) that I laboured to advance the King s prerogative Die 
above the law? To advance it, and yet made contrary Sepfcimo> 
Canons against it ; which is the way to destroy it ? What 
pretty nonsense is this ? Or is it because the framers of these 
additionals, (whom I conceive were some Committee, with the 
help of Mr. Pryn,) thought the time was come, or coming, 
in which the King should have no more prerogative ? Or if 
there be a third reason ; let them give it themselves/ 

This was all concerning the Canons. Then followed the 
sixth original Article about my assuming of papal power 
" where Mr. Brown, in summing up of his charge, was pleased 
to say, f that no Pope claimed so much as I had done/ But 
he was herein much mistaken. For never any Pope claimed 
so little. For he that claimed least, claimed it in his own 
right, which was none ; whereas I claimed nothing but in the 
King s right, and by virtue of his concession. Between which 
there is a vast latitude l ." The first proof upon this Article, 
was read out of certain letters sent unto me by the Uni 
versity of Oxford, I being then their Chancellor. Which great 
titles were urged to prove my assuming of papal power, 
because I did rot check them in my answers to those letters/ 
(1.) The first title was Sanctitas tua, which Mr. Nicolas 
said, was the Pope s own title/ But he is deceived. For 
the title was commonly given to other bishops also 2 , clean 
through the primitive Church, both Greek and Latin. " He 
replied in great heat, (as his manner it seems is,) that tis 
blasphemy to give that title (Sanctitas} in the abstract, to 
285 any (143) but God/ And though by the course of the Court 
I might not answer then to the reply, yet now I may. And 
must tell Mr. Nicolas, that tis a great presumption for him, 
a lawyer, and no studied divine, to charge blasphemy upon 
all the Fathers of the primitive Church. Tis given to 
St. Augustine by Hilarius and Evodius 3n , and in the abstract. 

1 [ where Mr. Brown, . . . latitude. on opposite page.] 

2 [ other bishops also, in margin. Originally written bishops, ] 

3 [ Hilarius. and Evodius, in margin.] 

m [See the Letter of the University, omnibus nota est, parvitati meae per- 

May 28, 1635. Hist, of Chancellorship, suasit." Hilarius ad August.] apud 

VY orks, vol. v. p. 114. J [S.] Aug. Epist. Ixxxviii. [(clvi. Ben.) 

" [" Sanctitatis tuse gratia, quse Op., torn. ii. col. 810. A. " Pridem 


Die And (which is the charge laid to me) St. Augustine never 

checks at, or finds fault with the title, nor with them for 
writing it. And St. Augustine himself gives that title to 
Evodius j answering his letters, which I was not to do to 
theirs. And after that to Quintianus 1 P. Neither is anything 
more common than this style among the Fathers ; as all 
learned men know. And tis commonly given by S. Gregory 
the Great i, to divers bishops : who, being Pope himself, 
would not certainly have given away his own title (had it 
been peculiar to him) to any other bishop. Nor would any 
of the Fathers have given this epithet to their brethren, had 
any savour of blasphemy been about it 1 ." But there is a two 
fold holiness, the one original, absolute, and essential ; and 
that is in God only, and incommunicable to any creature : 
the other derivative and relative; and that is found in the 
creatures, both things and persons : or else God should have 
no saints, no holy ones. For no man can be said to be 
sanctus, holy, but he who in some degree hath sanctitatem, 
holiness/ residing in him. And this I answered at the pre 
sent. " But, according to Mr. Nicolas his divinity, we shall 
learn in time to deny the immortality of the soul. For 
immortality in the abstract is applied to God only. 1 Tim. vi. 
Who only hath immortality S . J Therefore, if it may not in 
an under and a qualified sense, by participation, be applied 
to the creature, the soul of man cannot be immortal." 

(2.) The second title is, Spiritu Sancto effusissime plenus i . 

1 [ himself gives. . . . Quintianus. on opposite page. Originally, himself 
gives that title to Evodius, and after that to Quintianus. ] 

qusestiones misi ad sanctitatem r The managers against the Areh- 

tuam." Evodius ad August. Epist.] bishop in another place pretend, that 

xcviii. [clxiii. Ben. ibid. col. 856. C.] this title was never given to any 

[" Si ea quse me magis occupant English bishop at least. But herein 
. . . Sanctitas tua nosse tanti habet." they are much mistaken. For it was 
S.] Aug. Ep. cii. [(clix. Ben.) Op., often given to them. To produce but 
torn. ii. col. 901. C.] one instance : Pope Leo III. gave this 

P [" Portant sane secum reliquias title to Ethelard, Archbishop of Can- 

beatissimi et gloriosissimi martyris terbury, and that in a letter wrote to 

Stephaui, quas non ignorat Sanctitas Kenulphus, King of Mercia. Angl. 

vestra." S.] Aug. Ep. ciii. [(ccxii. Sacr. par. i. p. 460. [Lond. 1691.1 

Ben.) ibid. col. 1195. B.] H. W. 

1 Greg. Eulogio Episcopo Alexan- 8 1 Tim. vi. 16. 

drino. Apud H. Spelman. in Concil. * [See the Letter of the University, 

p. 80. [Lond. 1639.] Et Episc. Arela- May 28, 1635. Hist, of Chancellorship, 

tensi. ibid. 75. Works, vol. v. p. 113.] 


My Lds., I had sent them many hundred manuscripts, and Die 
in many languages ; upon this, in allusion to the gift of 
tongues, (and it was about Pentecost, too, that I sent them,) 
the luxuriant pen of the University orator ran upon these 
phrases, which I could neither foresee, before they were 
written, nor remedy after. And finding fault could not 
remedy that which was past. Besides, all these letters were 
in answer to mine : I was to answer none of theirs. That 
might have made me work enough, had I wanted any. 

(3.) The third style is Summus Pontifex. But this was in 
my L. of London s letters, and he must answer, if anything 
be amiss. But Pontifex, and Summus too, is no unusual 
style to and of the chief prelate in any nation. 

(4.) The fourth style is Archangelus, et ne quid nimis 11 . Yes, 
sure, the meanest of these titles is multum nimis, far too 
much, applied to my person and unworthiness : yet a great 
sign it is, that I deserved very well of that University, in the 
place I then bare ; or else they would never have bestowed 
286 such titles upon me. And if they did offend, in giving such 
an unworthy man such high language, why are not they 
called in question for their own fault ? 

(5.) The last which I remember is, Quo rectior non stat 
regula, &c. v And this is no more than an absolute hyperbole ; 
a high one, I confess, yet as high are found in all rhetorical 
authors : and what should make that blasphemy in an Uni 
versity orator which is everywhere common, and iiot only 
allowed, but commendable, I know not. " Especially since 
the rule of the interpretation of them is as well known as the 
figure. Where the words are not to be understood in their 
proper and literal sense, but as St. Aug. speaks, when that 
which is spoken longe est amplius, is far larger than that which 
is signified by it x ." And if I had assumed any of these titles 
to myself, which I am, and ever was, far from doing ; yet tis 
one thing to assume papal title ; and another to assume 
papal power, which is the thing charged ; though I thank 

u [See the Letter of the University, que tropica est, non propria .... Iste 

of July 9, 1636, ibid. p. 140.] autem tropus, id est modus locutionis, 

v [Seethe Letter of the University, fit, quando id quod dicitur longe est 

Nov. 10, 1640, ibid. p. 295.] amplius, quam quod eo dicto signifi- 

1 ["Ea locutione dictum est, quam catur."] S. Aug. [lib.]xvi. [de]Civ. Dei, 

Grseci vocant hyperbolen ; quae uti- cap. xxi. [Op., torn. vii. col. 690. C.] 


Die God I did neither. " If I have here omitted any title, it is 

mere forgetfulness ; for one part or other of the answers given 
will reach it, whatever it be. And as I told Mr. Browne, 
when he charged this on me, Dr. Strowd, the University 
orator y, who writ those letters, and gave those titles, was 
called up before a Committee of this Parliament, examined 
about them, acquitted, and dismissed 1 ." 

(6.) These titles from the letters being past, he quoted 
another, which he called a blasphemous speech too, out of 
my book against Fisher ; where/ he said, I approved of 
Anselme, an enemy to the Crown; and took on me to be 
Patriarch of this other world z . Let any man look into that 
place of my book : and he shall find that I made use of that 
passage only to prove that the Pope 2 could not be appealed 
unto out of England, according to their own doctrine : which 
I hope is no blasphemy. And for St. Anselme, (144) howsoever 
he was swayed with the corruptions of his time, yet was he 
in other things worthy the testimony which the authors by 
me cited give him. "And if any man be angry that the 
Archbishop of Canterbury is called the Patriarch of this 
other world/ he may be pleased to remember, that St. Jerom 
gives St. Augustine, who was Bishop of Hippo, and no Arch 
bishop, a greater title than that. For he writes, Beatissimo 
Papce Augustino, more than once and again, as appears in his 
epistles to St. Augustine 3 a ." 

(7.) To these Sir Nathaniel Brent s testimony is produced : 
who says, that he overheard me say to another, that T would 
not so easiN quit the plenitude of my power ; or to that 
effect/ He confesses he was coming in, and finding me 
speaking with another, made stay, and stood afar off, and 
knows not of what I spake/ (for so he said) but overheard the 
words. I beseech your Lps., observe this witness. He con 
fesses he knows not of what I spake, and yet comes here upon 

1 [ If I have . . . dismissed. on opposite page.] 

2 [ that the Pope in marg.] 

3 [ of Canterbury ... St. Augustine. on opposite page.] 

r [William Strode, Canon of Ch, xi. [(Ixxv. Ben.) Op., torn. ii. col. 251. 

Ch. (Wood, Ath. Ox. iii. 151.)] B.],xiii. [(Ixviii. Ben.) ibid. col. 233. D.), 

1 Cont. Fisher, 25, p. 171. [p. 190, xiv. [(Ixxii. Ben.) ibid. col. 241. B.J, 

Oxf. 1849.] xvii. [(xxxix. Ben.) ibid. col. 124. A.], 

" S. Hieron. apud [S.] Aug. Epist. xviii. [(Ixxxi. Ben.) ibid. col. 283. A.] 


his oath, to testify of plenitude of power in relation to my Die 
assuming papal power. If he mean not this, his testimony e P timo - 
is nothing; for plenitude of power may extend to many other 
things ; and I might justly say, (if I said it,) that I would 
not easily part with the plenitude of my power/ in relation 
to other bishops of my province, who by law have not so full 
power as I have. But if he did mean this, then his testimony 
287 is worse than nothing. Nothing, in regard he confesses he 
knows not of what I was speaking. And worse than nothing, 
that, not knowing, he would give such a testimony upon oath. 
" [As for the statutes themselves, there was scarce one urged 
against me ; but it was either a statute, or a prescription of 
that University, long before I was born into the world ; and 
could not therefore be of my new-making. And this was my 
answer to Mr. Browne in the House of Commons. And 
such bannition, discommoning, and the like, are well known 
tobe lb .]" 

The next charge of this day was, that I went about to II. 
exempt the clergy from the civil magistrate/ 

1. The first witness is Mr. Pincen; he says, he heard me 
say at the High- Commission, That the clergy were now 
debased ; that heretofore it was otherwise, and I hope to see 
it so again. Truly, my Lords, if I did say thus, which is 
more than I can call to memory, I spake truth ; they were 
debased ; and I did hope to see it otherwise. For the de 
basing of the clergy will make their office and their doctrine 
base, as well as their persons. But here is not a word of 
freeing them from laws or the temporal magistrate. It was 
replied, he did mention the civil magistrate . " If he did, he 
mentions no time, by which I might be enabled to make 
counterproof. He is single. They are words, and if within 
the statute, then triable by it within six months. And I 
desire this grave gentleman to consider his oath : for if I 
spake of any such exemption, I must speak against my con 
science and judgment, which I humbly thank God I use not 

1 [ As for .... to be. on opposite page. P. 157 is written against this 
passage, in Archbishop Laud s hand. See below, p. 189.] 

b These six lines are inserted out of versity, which followeth afterwards. 
place, and belong clearly to his defence W. S. A. C. 
of making new statutes for the Uni- 



Die to do. Nor is it altogether impossible for the civil magis- 

3ao trate sometimes to oppress poor clergymen. But a little will 

be thought too much of this. And therefore to Mr. Browne s 

summary charge I gave the former answer, that I spake of 

exemption from oppression, not from law l ." 

2. The second witness was Alderman Railton, about the 
carrying up of the sword in the church, when he was Ld. 
Mayor. He says, I once sent him word about it, but knows 
not by whom 2 , and after heard no more of it, but refers 
himself to Mr. Marsh. He says, there was an order of the 
Council- table, May 3, 1633, concerning the submitting of 
the sword in time and place of divine service/ If an order 
of Council, then was it no act of mine, as I have often pleaded, 
and must as often as it comes. He says further, that I spake 
these words, or to this effect ; ( That the Church had been low 
for these hundred years ; but I hoped it would flourish again 
in another hundred/ But here s no one word of exemption 
from civil magistracy. And I hope your Lps. will take wit 
nesses as they speak, not as men shall infer, and descant 
upon them. " And then, my Lords, under favour, I see no 
harm in the words." Only I shall recal my hope : for if I had 
then any hope to see it nourish in another hundred years, 
tis that which I cannot hope for now. He says, there was 
a reference to the Council on both sides, and that under that 
reference the business died/ And if it died then, what makes 
it here before the resurrection ? Yea, but says Mr. Nicolas, 
here s agitation about the submitting of the sword, which 
is the emblem of temporal power/ But neither to foreign 288 
nor home power, but only to God ; and that in the place, and 
at the performance of His holy worship. At which time and 
place Christian 3 kings submit themselves, and therefore 
cannot stand upon the emblems of their power. Nor would 
the Lords of the Council have made either order or reference, 
had there been anything of danger, or against law, in this 
kind of submitting. Mr. Yorke was produced as another 
witness; but said just the same with Marsh; and so the 
same answer served him. 
III. Then followed a charge about the Charter of York to be 

1 [ Nor is it ... law. on opposite pa^e.] 

2 [ but knows not by whom/ in margin.] 3 [ Christian in margin.] 


renewed ; aud that I did labour to have the Archbishop of Die 
York his Chancellor, and some of the residentiaries, named in eptl1 
it l to be justices of peace within the city. To (145) prove this. 
Alderman Hoyle c is produced : who says, there was an order 
of the Council about this, but cannot say that I procured it/ 
(so far, then, this proof reaches not me,) ( for the bishop his 
chancellor, and some of the residentiaries, to be justices of 
peace within the city/ If I were of this opinion, (as then 
advised,) I am sure there s no treason in it, and I believe no 
crime. And under your Lps/ favour, I could not but think 
it would have made much peace, and done much good, in all 
the cities of England where cathedrals are. Lastly, he says, 
there was a debauched man committed about breach of the 
Sabbath, and being casually smothered, I should say, they 
deserved to be hanged that killed him/ Concerning this 
man; he lost his life, that s confessed. His debauchery, what 
it was, is not proved. And were he never so disorderly, I 
am sure he was not, without legal trial, to be shut up into a 
house and smothered. That is against both law and con 
science. And the officers then in being had reason to smother 
the business as much as they could. And, it may be, deserved 
somewhat ; if not that which this alderman says I said, to 
his best remembrance/ For so, and with no more certainty, 
he expressed it. This I am sure I said, that if the bishop, or 
any of the Church had been then in their charter, the poor 
man s life had not been lost. 

The fourth charge was just of the same nature, concerning IV. 
the charge of Shrewsbury. For this there were produced 
two witnesses, Mr. Lee and Mr. Mackworth : but they make 
up but one between them. For Mr. Lee could say nothing 2 , 
but what he acknowledges he heard from Mr. Mackworth. 
And Mr. Mackworth says first, that f the schoolmaster s 
business was referred to other lords and myself. That s no 
crime ; and to my knowledge, that has been a troublesome 
business for these thirty years. He says, ( I caused that 
there should go a Quo warranto against the town/ This is 
but as Mr. Owen informed him, so no proof. Beside, tis no 
crime, being a referee, if I gave legal reason for it. Nor is 

1 [ named iii it in margin.] 2 [ could say nothing, in margin.] 

c [M. P. for the city of York.] 



Die it any crime, that the bishop and his chancellor should be 

mo j ustices within the town ; as is aforesaid in the case of York : 
considering especially, that then many clergymen bare that 
office in divers counties of England. He adds, that an old 
alderman gave fifty pound to St. PauPs. But out of what 
consideration I know not, nor doth he speak : and if every 
alderman in the town would have given me as much to that 
use, I would have taken it, and thanked them for it. Then 289 
he says, there was an order from all the lords referees, for 
settling all things about their charter. So, by his own con 
fession, the whole business was transacted publicly, and by 
persons of great honour ; and nothing charged upon my par 
ticular. If Mr. Owen sent me in a butt of sack, and after 
put it upon the town account/ (for so he also says,) Mr. 
Owen did ill in both ; but I knew of neither. And this the 
counsel in their reply said they urged not in that kind. 
Lastly, the charter itself was read* to both points, of the 
bishop s and his chancellor s l being justices of peace within 
the town, and the not bearing up of the sword/ To both 
which I have answered already. And I hope your Lps. 
cannot think his Majesty would have passed such a charter : 
or that his learned counsel durst have put it to him, had this 
thing been such a crime as tis here made. 

V. The next charge was out of my Diary, at March 5, 1635. 
The words are, William Juxou, Ld. Bp. of London, made 
Ld. High Treasurer of England. No Churchman had it 
since II. VII. time. I pray God bless him to carry it so, 
that the Church may have honour, and the King and the 
State service and contentment by it. And now if the Church 
will not hold up themselves under God, I can do no more d . 
I can see no treason in this, nor crime neither. And though 
that which I did to help on this business was very little ; yet 
aim I had none in it, but the service of the King, and the 
good of the Church. And I am most confident it would have 
been both, had not such troublesome times followed, as did. 
VI. Then they instanced in the case of Mr. Newcomen. But 
that cause being handled before e , they did only refer the 
Lords to their notes : and so did I to my former answers. 

1 [ and his chancellor s in margin.] 
d [Vol. iii, p. 226.] e [See above, p. 118. ] 


Then followed the case of Thorn and Middleton ; which 
were fined in the High- Commission about some clergymen s 
business ; Thome being (146) constable : the witnesses in 
this case are three. 

1. The first is Huntsford (if I took his name right f ) : and 
for the censure of these men, he confesses, it was in and by 
the High-Commission ; and so no act of mine (as I have 
often pleaded) : but then he says, that I there spake these 
words, That no man of their rank should meddle with men 
in Holy Orders/ First, he is in this part of the charge 
single, and neither of the other witnesses comes in to him. 
Secondly, I humbly desire the proceedings of the High- Com 
mission may be seen (which are taken out of our hands). 
For so far as I can remember anything of this cause, the 
minister, Mr. Lewis, had hard measure. And perhaps there 
upon I might say, That men of their rank should not in 
such sort meddle with men in Holy Orders/ But to tax the 
proceedings of a violent busy constable, was not to exempt 
the clergy from civil magistracy. 

Upon this he falls just upon the same words, and says, 
e that I uttered them about their offering to turn out a 
corrector from the printing-house/ This corrector was a 
minister, and a w r ell deserving man. The trust of the press 
was referred to the High-Commission Court 1 . And I hope 
your Lps. will not think, that not to suffer the printers to 
turn out a deserving man at their pleasure, is to exempt 
the clergy from the civil magistrate/ The business, my 
290 Lords, was this. This corrector was principally entertained 
for the Latin and Greek press especially, which I had then, 
not without great pains and some cost, erected. They were 
desirous to keep only one for the English, and him at the 
cheapest. Among them their negligence was such, as that 
there were found above a thousand faults in two editions of 
the Bible and Common-Prayer Book. And one which caused 
this search was that in Exod. xx., where they had shamefully 
printed 2 , Thou shalt commit adultery/ For this the masters 

1 [ the High-Commission Court. in margin, correcting some words which 
are crossed out, and which appear to be, me. and my Lord of London. ] 

2 [ where they had shamefully printed/ in marg. Orig. They had printed, ] 

[Joseph Hunscot, the Printer, mentioned above, p. 70. See also below, 
p. 185.] 


Die of the printing-house were called into the High-Commission, 

K eptimo. an( j censure ^ as they well deserved it. As for this corrector 
whom they would have heaved out, they never did so much 
as complain of him to any that had power over the press, till 
this fell upon themselves for so gross an abuse. Nor did they 
after this proceed against him, to make him appear faulty ; 
and till that were done, we could not punish. And for this 
business of the press, he is single too. And I have told your 
Lps. that which is a known truth. " And Hunsford, being 
bit in his credit and purse, and friends, by that censure, for 
so gross an abuse of the Church and religion, labours to 
fasten his fangs upon me in this way." 

2. The second witness is Mr. Bland. But all that he says 
is, that f there was once a dismission of this cause out of the 
court, and that though I disliked it l , yet I gave way to it, 
because all parties were agreed/ And no word of proof, that 
I was any cause of bringing it back into the court again. 
What s my fault in this ? 

3. The third witness was Thorn in his own cause : and 
tis plain, by his own words, that this cause was depending in 

court before my time. And I believe, were the records of 
the court here, Mr. Lewis would not be found so great an 
offender as Mr. Thorn would make him. This I am sure of, 
both the High-Commission and myself have been quick 
enough against all ministers which have been proved to be 
debauched in their life and conversation. And he says 
nothing against me, but that I sided with his adversaries ; 
which is easy to say against any judge that delivers his 
sentence against any man. But neither of these come home 
to Hunsford. 

VIII. The next charge is in the case of one Mr. Tomkins, about 
the taxing of a minister in a case of robbery, and repayment 
by the country 2 . 

To this Mr. Newdigate is produced ; who says, as he re 
members, that I should speak these words, ( That ministers 
were free from such taxes, and I hoped to see the times in 
which they might be free again/ First, this gentleman is 
single. Secondly 3 , he speaks not positively, but as he 

1 [ and that though I disliked it, in margin.] 

2 [ by the country. in margin.] 3 [ Secondly/ in margin.] 


remembers/ Thirdly, this tax I do humbly con(147)ceive Die 
is not by law to be laid upon any minister. For no man is e P timo - 
subject to this tax, but they which are to keep watch and 
ward; which ministers in that kind are not bound unto. 
And this I learned of the Ld. Keep. Coventry at the Council- 
table. So I might well then hope to see ministers free from 
all such taxes, by the right understanding and due execution 
of our own laws, without assuming any papal power. 

The last instance of this day was the bringing Sir Rich. IX. 
291 Samuel h into the High-Commission, for doing his office as 
justice of the peace upon some clergymen. First, for this, 
this gentleman is single, and in his own case. Secondly, 
himself confesses, that his bringing into the High-Commis 
sion was long after the fact/ Therefore in all probability 
not for that : nor doth he say that I caused his bringing in. 
He says further, that one article for which he was called 
into the Commission, was, that he was an enemy to the 
clergy/ But he doth not say, that I preferred these articles 
against him ; nor doth he tell, or can I remember, what the 
other articles were, which with this may be bad enough to 
merit what was there laid against him : and whatsoever was 
done, appears by his own narration to be the act of the 
High-Commission, or the Council-table, and so not chargeable 
upon me alone. And whereas he says, I blamed him much 
at the Council-table : let him tell why, and then I ll give 
him a further answer : and sure if I did blame him, I had 
just cause so to do. Lastly, he says, I did use the word 
base to him when he came to me/ Sure I cannot believe 
I did : it was not my language to meaner men. If it did 
slip from me, it was in relation to his enmity to the clergy, 
not to his person or quality. " And I conceive tis no gentle 
part, for a man of place and power in his country, to oppress 
poor clergymen which neighbour about him. In which kind 
this gentleman pessime audiebat, heard extremely ill." 

[Thomas Coventry, appointed vol. i. p. 80.] 

Lord Keeper, Nov. 1, 1625 ; Baron h [This was probably Sir Rich. 

Coventry, April 10, 1628. See his Samwell, of Upton and Gayton, in the 

character in Clarendon, Hist. Rebell. county of Northampton.] 



CAP. XXX. 292 

THIS day thus ended, I was ordered to appear again on 
April 22. Monday, April 22. I came, and my former answers having 
taken off the edge of many men, (for so I was told by good 
hands,) the scorns put upon me at my landing and elsewhere 
were somewhat abated, though when it was at best I suffered 
enough. After I had attended the pleasure of the House 
some hours, I was remitted without hearing, and commanded 
April 25. to attend again upon Thursday, April 25. But sent back 
April 30. again then also, and ordered to appear on Tuesday, April 30. 
And when I came, I was sent away once more unheard : no 
consideration had of myself, or the great charge which this 
frequent coming put me to. I was then ordered to appeal- 
again on Saturday, May 4. Then I was heard again ; and 
the day proceeded as follows. 



Maii 4, 



To raise up envy against me, Mr. Nicolas falls first to 
repeating the titles which were given me in letters from 
Oxford ; to which I gave answer the day before. From 
thence he fell again upon the former charge, e My endeavour 
to exempt the clergy from the civil power/ And very loud 
he was, and full of sour language upon me. To this general 
I answered with another more true; that I never did attempt 
to bring the temporal power under the clergy, nor to free the 
clergy from being under it : but I do freely confess, I did 
labour all I could to preserve poor clergymen from some 
laymen s oppression, which lay heavy on them. And de vi 
laica hath been an old, and a great, and too just a complaint. 
And this I took to be my duty, doing it without wrong to 
any man ; as sincerely I did to the best of my knowledge. 
And 1 assuring myself, that God did not raise me to that 
place of eminency to sit still, see His service neglected, and 
His ministers discountenanced ; nay, sometimes little better 
than trampled on. " And my standing thus to the clergy, 
1 [ doing it ... And in margin.] 


and their just grievances, is not the least cause of my present Die 
condition. In which my case (though not my abilities) is 
somewhat like Cicero s. For having now for many years 
defended the public state of the Church, and the private of 
many (148) churchmen ; as he had done many citizens ; 
when he by prevailing factions came into danger himself, 
ejus salutem defendit nemo a , no man took care to defend him 
that had defended so many ; which yet I speak not to impute 
anything to men of my own calling, who, I presume, would 
have lent me their j ust defence, to their power ; had not the 
same storm which drove against my life, driven them into 
corners to preserve themselves." 

293 The first instance was in Mr. Shervil s case b ; in which Mr. I. 
John Steeveris tells what I said to the counsel pleading in 
the Star-Chamber, which was, that they should take care 
f not to cause the laws of the Church and the kingdom to 
clash one against another/ I see, my Lords, nothing that I 
spake was let fall, nor can I remember every speech that 
passed from me ; he may be happy that can. But if I did 
speak these words, I know no crime in them : it was a good 
caveat to the counsel, for aught I know. For surely the laws 
of Church and State in England would agree well enough 
together, if some did not set them at odds. And if I did 
further say to the then Ld. Keeper, (as tis charged,) that 
some clergymen had sat as high as he, and might again ; } 
which I do not believe I said ; yet if I did, tis a known 
truth : for the Ld. Coventry, then Ld. Keeper, did imme 
diately succeed the Ld. Bp. of Lincoln in that office. But 
though I dare say I said not thus to the Ld. Keeper, whose 
moderation gave me no cause to be so round with him, 
yet to the counsel at bar, I remember well, upon just oc 
casion given, that I spake to this effect ; That they would 
forbear too much depressing of the clergy, either in their 
reputation or maintenance ; in regard it was not impossible 
that their profession, now as high as ours once was, may fall 
to be as low as ours now is ; " if the professors set themselves 

a [Veil.] Patcrc. lib. ii. Hist. [cap. See State Trials, vol. i. pp. 374396. 

66.] Lond. 1730. The words which the 

b [This was the case of Henry Slier- Archbishop admitted that he used, 

field, for breaking the painted window will be found in his speech, juxta fin. 

in S. Edmund s Church, Salisbury. See Work?, vol. vi.] 


Octavo against the Church, as some of late are known to have done : 
and that the sinking of the Church would be found the ready 
way to it 1 ." 

II. The second instance was about calling some justices of the 
peace into the High-Commission, about a sessions kept at 

1. The first witness for this (for three were produced) was 
Mr. John Steevens. He says, ( that the aisle where the 
sessions were kept was joined to the church/ If it were not 
now a part of the church, yet doubtless, being within the 
churchyard, it was consecrated ground. He says, ( that 
sessions were kept there heretofore/ And I say, the more 
often the worse. He says, that I procured the calling of them 
into the High-Commission/ But he proves no one of these 
things, but by the report of Sir Rob. Cook, of Gloucester 
shire, a party in this cause. He says again, that they had 
the Bp/s licence to keep sessions there/ But the proof of 
this also is no more than that Sir Rob. Cook told him so : so 
all this hitherto is hearsay. Then he says, the 88. Canon 
of the Church of England was urged in the Commission 
Court, which seems to give leave in the close of the canon, 
that temporal courts or leets may be kept in church or 
churchyard / First, that clause in the end of the canon is 
referred to the ringing of bells, not to the profanations men 
tioned in the former part of that canon. Nor is it probable 
the minister and churchwardens should have power to give 
such leave, when no canon gives such power to the bishop 
himself. And were it so, here s no proof offered, that the 
minister and churchwardens did give leave : and suppose 
some temporal courts might upon urgent occasion be kept in 
the church with leave, yet that is no warrant for sessions, 
where there may be trial for blood. He says further, that 
the civilians quoted an old canon of the Pope s, and that that 
prevailed against the canon of our Church, and sentence 
given against them/ All those canons which the civilians 
urged are law in England d , where nothing is contrary to the 294 
1 [ and that . . . it. on opposite page.] 

c Can. 88, Eccl. Ang. be in force which avc not contrary to 

d 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19, ult. [This the laws of the realm.] 
clause provides that all canons shall 


law of God, or the law of the land, or the King s prerogative Die 
royal l : and to keep off profanation from churches is none of Octam 
these. Besides, were all this true which is urged, the act 
was the High-Commission s, not mine. Nor is there any 
thing in it that looks toward treason. 

2. The second witness is Mr. Edward Steevens. He con 
fesses that the sentence was given by the High-Commission, 
and that I had but my single (149) vote in it. And for the 
place itself, he says, the place where the sessions were kept 
was separated from the aisle of the church by a wall breast- 
high/ which is an evident proof that it was formerly a part 
of that church, and continued yet under the same roof. 

3. The third witness is Mr. Talboyes (who, it seems, will 
not be out of anything which may seem to hurt me e ). He 
says, the parish held it no part of the church. Why are 
not some of them examined, but this man s report from them 
admitted ? They thought no harm, he says, and got a 
licence. But why did they get a licence, if their own con 
science did not prompt them that something was irregular in 
that business ? He says, he was informed the sessions had 
been twice kept there before/ And I say, under your Lps. 
favour, the oftener the worse. But why is not his informer 
produced, that there might be proof, and not hearsay ? Upon 
this, I said, (so he concludes,) that I would make a precedent 
against keeping it any more/ If I did say so, the cause 
deserved it men in this age growing so bold with churches, 
as if profanation of them were no fault at all. 

The third instance concerned Sir Tho. Dacres, a justice of HI. 
peace in Middlesex, and his warrant for punishing some 
disorderly drinking. The witnesses the two churchwardens, 
Colliar and Wilson ; two plain men, but of great memories : 
for this business was when I was Bishop of London ; and yet 
they agree in every circumstance, in every word, though so 
many years since. Well, what say they ? It seems Dr. Duck f , 
then my chancellor, had cited these churchwardens into my 
court/ Therefore either there was, or at least to his judg 
ment there seemed to be, somewhat done in that business 
against the jurisdiction of the Church. They say then, that 

1 [ or the King s prerogative royal : on opposite page.] 
e [See above, pp. 77, 100.] f [Dr. Arthur Duck, mentioned vol. iii. p. 450.] 


Die the court ended, Dr. Duck brought them to me/ And what 

then ? Here is a cause, by their own confession, depending 
in the ecclesiastical court ; Dr. Duck in the King s quarters, 
where I cannot fetch him to testify ; no means left me to 
know what the proceedings were ; and I have good cause to 
think, that were all the merits of the cause open before your 
Lps., you would say, Sir Tho. Dacres did not all according to 
law. But what is the heart of this charge ? It is, say they, 
that I commanded Dr. Duck to prosecute them/ And what 
fault was in this ? For if it were just, why should not Dr. 
Duck go on with his prosecution ? If Dr. Duck and I were 
both mistaken in the particular, twas easy getting a prohibi 
tion. Yea, but they say I said, If this must be so, Sir Thorn. 
Dacres shall be Bishop of London, and I ll be Sir Tho. 
Dacres/ For aught I see in the weight of it, this whole 
charge was but to bring in this speech. And truly, my Lds., 
my old decayed memory is not such, as that I can recal a 
speech, thirteen or fourteen years since. But if I did say it, 
I presume tis not high treason for a Bishop of London to 295 
say so much of Sir Tho. Dacres. "Mr. Browne, in the 
summing up the charge against me, laid the weight of the 
charge in this, that these churchwardens were prosecuted for 
executing the warrant of a justice of peace upon an ale-house 
keeper, for tippling on the Sabbath-day, contrary to the 
statutes Jacobi 7 and Caro. 3. To which I answered, That 
those statutes did concern the ale-house keepers only ; nor 
were the churchwardens called in question for that ; but 
because, being church-officers, and a churchman tippling 
there, they did not complain of that to the chancellor of the 
diocese. Mr. Browne replied, there was no clergyman there. 
I am glad I was so mistaken. But that excuseth not the 
churchwardens, who, being church-officers, should have been 
as ready to inform the bishop, as to obey the justice of 
peace V 

IV. The fourth instance was about marriages in the Tower, 
which I opposed against law. The witness Sir William Bal- 
fore, then Lieutenant of the Tower. He says, that I did 
oppose those marriages. And so say I. But I did it for the 
subject of England s sake. For many of their sons and 
1 [ Mr. Browne, . . peace. on opposite page.] 


daughters were there undone. Nor banns, nor licence,, nor Die 
any means of foreknowledge to prevent it. Was this ill ? Octavo - 
He says, that when he spake with me about it, I desired 
him to speak with his Majesty about it, because it was the 
King s house/ What could I do with more moderation? 
He confesses he did so, and that he moved the King that 
the cause might be heard at the Council-table, not at the 
High-Commission : to this his Majesty inclined, and I 
opposed nothing; so the general abuse might be rectified. 
Then he says, Mr. Attorney Noye said at the Council-table, 
it was the King s free-chapel, and that no Pope in those 
times offered to inhibit there/ First, if Mr. Attorney did so 
say, he must have (150) leave to speak freely in the King s 
cause. Secondly, (as I humbly conceive,) the chapel for 
ordinary use of prisoners and inhabitants of the Tower, where 
these disorderly marriages are made, is not that which is 
called the King s free-chapel ; but another in the side of the 
White Tower by the King s lodgings. Thirdly, if it be, yet I 
have herein not offended, for I did all that was done by the 
King s leave, not by any assumption of papal power. Then 
he tells the Lords, that in a discourse of mine w r ith him at 
Greenwich, about this business, I let fall an oath. I am 
sorry for it, if I did. But that s no treason. " And I know 
whom the deponent thinks to please by this interposition. 
For to the matter it belongs not." In conclusion, he says 
truly, f that the King committed the business to some lords 
and judges, that so an end might be put to it : and in the 
meantime ordered, that, till it were ended, there should be no 
more marriages in the Tower. How this business ended, I 
know not. It began, I am sure, by authority of his Majesty s 
grant of the High-Commission, to question and punish all 
such abuses, tarn in locis exemptis, quam non exemptis s. And 
his Majesty having graciously taken this care for the indem 
nity of the subject, I troubled myself no more with it : my 
aim being not to cut off any privileges of that place, but only 
to prevent the abuses of that lawless custom. " Arid if cui 
bono be a considerable circumstance, as it uses to be in all 
such businesses, then it may be thought on too, that this 
296 gentleman, the lieutenant, had a considerable share for his 

* [See Rymer, Foedera, VIIT. iv. 39.] 


Die part out of the fee for every marriage. Which I believe was 

Octavo. ag ^ ear to n i m as t j ie privilege." 

V. The next instance is broke out of the Tower, and got as far 
as Oxford. The witness Alderman Nixon. He says, the 
mayor and the watch set by him were disturbed by the 
Proctors of the University, and a constable imprisoned 11 / The 
night-walk, and the keeping of the watch, is the ancient, 
known, and constant privilege of the University 1 , for some 
hundred of years ; and so the watch set by the town ^(pur 
posely to pick a quarrel) was not according to law. He adds, 
that when the Right Honourable the E. of Barkshire 1 would 
have referred the business to the King s counsel learned, I 
refused, and said I would maintain it by my own power, as 
Chancellor. If I did say this (which I neither remember nor 
believe), I might better refuse lawyers, (riot the law, but 
lawyers,) than they a sworn judge of their own nomination, 
which they did. 

The case was briefly this. There were some five or six 
particulars which had, for divers years, bred much trouble 
and disagreement between the University and the city ; of 
which (to my best remembrance) this about the night-watch, 
and another about felons goods, were two of the chief. The 
University complained to me. I was so far from going any 
by-way, that I was resolved upon a trial at Westminster- 
Hall, thinking (as I after found) that nothing but a legal 
trial would set those two bodies at quiet. The townsmen 
liked not this. Came some of the chief of them to London : 
prevailed with their honourable steward, my Ld. the E. of 
Barkshire 2 , to come to me to Lambeth, and by his Lp. offered 
to have all ended without so great charge at law, by reference 
to any of the judges. I said I had no mind to wrong the 
town, or put them to charge, but thought they would fly off 
from all awards, and therefore stuck to have a legal trial. 
After this, some of the chief aldermen came to me with my 
lord, and offered me, that if the University would do the 
like, they would go down and bring it up under the mayor 

1 [ of the University, in margin.] 

2 [ my Ld. the E. of Barkshire, in margin.] 

h [See an account of this dispute in pp. 274 280.] 

Wood s Annals, pp. 421, 422. It is * [Thomas Howard, created Earl of 

also referred to by the Archbishop in Berkshire, Feb. 6. " 
Hist, of Chancellorship, Works, vol. v. 


and aldermen s hands, that they would stand to such end as Die 
Judge Jones, who rode that circuit, should upon hearing 
make. They did so : and brought the paper so subscribed 
(and therefore I think Alderman Nixon s hand is to it as well 
as the rest k ). Upon this I gave way ; the University accepted ; 
the judge heard and settled. And now when they saw my 
troubles threatening me, they brake all, whistled up their 
recorder 1 to come and complain at the Council-table, his 
Majesty (151) present 01 . And I remember well, I told his 
Lp. (then making the aforesaid motion to refer to the King s 
learned counsel), that his Lp. well knew what had passed, 
and that being so used as I had been by the townsmen, 
I would trouble myself with no more references to lawyers* 
or to that effect. And I appeal to the honour of my lord, 
whether this be not a true relation. 

The sixth instance concerns x the putting of one Mr. VI. 
Grant out of his right. He says, (but he is single and in his 
own cause,) that Mr. Bridges was presented to an impropria- 
tion, and that suing for tithe, he (the said Grant) got a 
prohibition, and Mr. Bridges a reference to the then Ld. 
Keeper Coventry and myself ; that we referred them to the 
297 law, and that there Grant was nonsuited, and so outed 
of his right. First, in all this there s nothing said to be 
done by me alone. Secondly, the Ld. Keeper, who well 
understood the law, thought it fittest to refer them to the 
law; and so we did. If he were there nonsuited first, and 
outed after, it was the law that put him out, not we. " Yet 
your Lps. see here was a prohibition granted in a case which 
the law itself after rejected." 

Then follows the instance, that I had a purpose to abolish all VIL 
impropriations. 1. The first proof alleged, was a passage out 
of Bishop Mountague s book, p. 210 n , that tithes were due 

1 [The passage was originally written, the putting of one Mr. Bridges out 
of his vicarage. Tis said by Mr. Grant, the single witness in this cause, and, 
as I remember, patron, that Mr. Bridges as vicar sued for tithes. Where the 
name Bridges is printed, the name Grant was erased and Bridges written 
above. The words and . . . patron are in margin.] 

k [See Articles of agreement be- m [See the order in Council, Hist, 

tween the Univ. and City of Oxford, of Chancellorship, Works, vol. v. pp. 

Hist, of Chancellorship, Works, vol.v. 283, 284.] 

pp. 123, 124. Nixon s name is not n [Diatribe upon the First Part of 

signed to them.] the late History of Tithes. By Richard 

1 [Mr. Whistler.] Mountagu. Lond. 1621.] 


Die by Divine right, and then no impropriations might stand V 

And Mr. Pryn witnessed very carefully : That this book was 
found in my own study, and given me by Bp. Mountague. 
And what of this ? Doth any bishop print a book, and not 
give the archbishop one of them? Or must I answer for 
every proposition that is in every book that is in my study ? 
or that any author gives me ? And if Bishop Mountague be 
of opinion that tithes are due by divine right, what is that to 
me? Your Lps. know, many men are of different opinions 
in that difficulty, and I am confident you will not determine 
the controversy by an Act of Parliament. They were nibbling 
at my Diary in this, to show that it was one of my projects 
to fetch in impropriations / but it was not fit for their pur 
pose : for tis expressed, * that if I lived to see the repair of 
St. Paul s near an end, I would move his Majesty for the like 
grant for the buying in of impropriations V And to buy them 
from the owners, is neither against law, nor against anything 
else that is good ; nor is it any usurpation of papal power. 

2. The second proof, was my procuring from the King 
such impropriations in Ireland, as were in the King s power, 
to the Church of Ireland. " Which Mr. Nicolas (in his 
gentle language) calls robbing of the Crown." My Lords, the 
case was this : The Ld. Primate of Armagh P writ unto me, 
how ill conditioned the state of that Church was for want of 
means, and besought me that I would move his Majesty to 
give the impropriations there, which yet remained in the 
Crown, for the maintenance and encouragement of able 
ministers to live among the people, and instruct them : 
assuring me, they were daily one by one begged away by 
private men, to the great prejudice both of Crown and 
Church. And the truth of this, the Ld. Primate is now in 
this kingdom, and will witness. I acquainted the King s 
great officers, the Ld. Treasurer 1 and the Chancellor of the 
Exchequer r , with it. And after long deliberation, the King 
was pleased, at my humble suit, to grant them in the way 
1 [ might stand. in margin.] 

Diary, in fine,nu. 21. [22. Yol. iii. proper place in Dec. 1633.] 
p. 255.] i [Richard Weston, first Baron 

P [See Abp. Ussher s letter, num- Weston, afterwards Earl of Portland.] 
bored clxxii. in Parr s Collection, and r [Sir F. (afterwards Lord) Cot- 

by him erroneously placed in 1632. tington.] 
It is restored by Dr. Elrington to its 


which I proposed. Which was, that when they came into Die 
the Clergy s hands, they should pay all the rents respectively Octavo - 
to the King ; and some consideration for the several renew- 
ings. And the truth of this appears in the deeds s . So here 
was no robbing of the Crown. For the King had all his set 
rents reserved to a penny, and consideration for his casualties 
beside. And, my Lords, the increase of Popery is complained 
of in Ireland. Is there a better way to hinder this growth, 
than to place an able Clergy among the inhabitants ? 
(152) Can an able Clergy be had without means ? Is any 
298 means fitter than impropriations restored ? My Lords, I did 
this, as holding it the best means to keep down Popery, and 
to advance the Protestant religion. And I wish with all my 
heart, I had been able to do it sooner, before so many impro 
priations were gotten from the Crown into private hands *. 

Next I was charged with another project in my Diary u , VIII. 
which was to settle some fixed commendams upon all the 
smaller bishoprics. For this, I said their own means were 
too small to live and keep any hospitality, little exceeding 
four or five hundred pound a year. I considered that the 
commendams taken at large and far distant, caused a great 
dislike and murmur among many men. That they were in 
some cases materia odiosa, and justly complained of. And 
hereupon I thought it a good Church-work, to settle some 
temporal lease, or some benefice sine cura, upon the lesser 
bishoprics ; but nothing but such as was in their own right 
and patronage : that so no other man s patronage might 
receive prejudice by the bishop s commendam : which was 
not the least rock of offence, against which commendams 
endangered themselves. And that this was my intent and 
endeavour, is expressed in my Diary : and I cannot be sorry 
for it. 

Then I was accused for setting old popish canons above IX. 
the laws. Mr. Burton is the sole witness. He says, it was 
in a case about a pew, in which those canons did weigh 
down an Act of Parliament. a I did never .think till now 

8 [The King s order to the Lords * [As, e. g. by Sir John Bathe, whose 

Justices of Ireland, respecting these case is mentioned in Laud s letter to 

impropriations, is given by Collier Ussher, July 5, 1630.] 

(Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. p. 749), from the u Diary, in fine. nu. 8. [leg. 9, vol. 

original in the Paper Office.] iii. p. 254.] 

LAUD. VOL. iv. 


Die Mr. Burton would have made any canons pew -fellows with an 

Octavo. ^ ct Q f p ar ij amen t." But seriously, should not Mr. Burton s 
testimony for this have been produced at the second instance 
of this day x ? For in the end of that is just such another 
charge; and the answer there given will satisfy this, and 
that by Act of Parliament too y. 

X. After this came a charge with a great outcry, that since 
my coming to be Archbishop I had renewed the High-Com 
mission, and put in many illegal and exorbitant clauses, 
which were not in the former. Both the commissions were 
produced z . Upon this I humbly desired, that the docket 
might be read ; by which their Lps. might see all those par 
ticulars which were added in the new commission, and so be 
able to judge, how fit or unfit they were to be added. The 
docket was read. And there was no particular found, but 
such as highly deserved punishment, and were of ecclesias 
tical cognizance, as blasphemy, schism, and two or three 
more of like nature. 

1 . In this charge, the first exorbitant l clause they insisted 
on, as added to the new commission, was the power given 
in locis exemptis, et non exemptis, as if it were thereby 
intended to destroy all privileges. No, not to destroy any 
privilege, but not to suffer enormous sins to have any privilege. 
Besides, this clause hath ever been in all commissions that 
ever were granted. And I then showed it to the Lords in the 
old commission there present, pp. 28, 32, 35, 42. " Nay more, 
this proceeding, tarn in locis exemptis, quam non exemptis, is 
allowed to the governors of the Church, in the exercise of 
their ecclesiastical jurisdiction, by Act of Parliament in Queen 
Elizabeth s time a ; which would never have been allowed, had 299 
it then been thought such a dangerous business, as tis now 
made against me *." 

2. The second clause was, Power to censure by fine and 
imprisonment/ This also I showed in the old commission, 
fol. 37 3 , and is, as I conceive, in plain pursuance of the Act 

exorbitant in margin.] 

Nay more . . against me. on opposite page.] 
fol. 37, in margin.] 

x [P. 148. of orig. MS. See above, z [The two Commissions are given 

p. 170.] inPtymer,Foed.VII. iv. 171 181, and 

y 25 Hen. VIII. cap. 19, ult. [See VIIL iv. 34-43.] 

above, p. 170, note d .] 1 Eliz. cap. 2. [ 23.] 


of Parliament upon which the High-Commission is grounded 15 . Di e 
For the King says there, fol. 13, (and so His in the new,) 
that he grants this power, hy virtue of his supreme authority 
and prerogative royal, f and of the said Act c . Nay further, 
His added in this latter commission, and by our authority 
ecclesiastical/ which is not expressed in the former. And 
sure I would never have caused authority ecclesiastical to 
be added, had I any plot (as His urged) either to exalt the 
clergy above the laity, or to usurp papal power/ which all 
men know is far enough from ascribing ecclesiastical autho 
rity to the King. And as for fine and imprisonment ; if that 
power be not according to law, why was it first admitted, and 
after continued in all former commissions l ? 

3. The third clause was the non obstante, which he said 
was against (153) all law, and of such a boundless extent, 
as was never found in commission or other grant in England/ 
And he here desired the Lords, that he might read it 2 , which 
he did, with great assurance of a triumph. But after all this 
noise, which Mr. Nicolas had made, I showed the same non 
obstante in the old commission, fol. 62, word for word, which 
I humbly desired might be read and compared : it was so. 
The Lords looked strangely upon it : Mr. Nicolas was so 
startled, that he had not patience to stay till his reply, (which 
he saw impossible to be made,) but interrupted me, and had 
the face to say in that honourable assembly, that I need not 
stand upon that, for he did but name that, without much 
regarding it. And yet at the giving of the charge, he insisted 
principally upon that clause, and in higher and louder terms 
than are before expressed. Had such an advantage been 
found against me, I should have been accounted extremely 
negligent, if I compared not the commissions together; or 
extremely impudent, if I did. 

4. The fourth exception was, c that by this commission I 
took greater power than ever any court had, because both 
temporal and ecclesiastical/ First, whatsoever power the 
High-Commission had, was not taken by them, till given by 

1 [ And as ... commissions ? on opposite page.] 

2 [ that he might read it/ originally Ho read it, ] 

b 1 Eliz. cap. 1, [1]8. virtue of this Act. 

c The words of the statute are, by 

N 2 


Die his Majesty, and that according to use and statute (for 

Octavo. all ght h at h b een y e t declared). Secondly, they have not 
power of life or limb, therefore not so great power as other 
courts have. Thirdly, they may have more various power in 
some respects, but that cannot make it greater. " As for the 
expression in which tis said, I took this power ; that is put 
most unworthily, and unjustly too, to derive the envy as much 
as he could upon my person only." For he could not hold 
from comparing me to Pope Boniface VIII. and saying, that 
I took on me the power of both swordsV But this was only 
ad faciendum populum. For he knows well enough, that to 
take both the swords, as the Pope takes them, is to challenge 
them originally as due to him and his place : not to take 
both, as under the prince, and given by his authority ; and 300 
so, not I alone, but all the commissioners take theirs. 

5. Fifthly, to prove that this vast commission (as it was 
called) was put in execution, Mr. Burton is produced. He 
says, that when he was called into the High-Commission, he 
appealed to the King, and pleaded his appeal ; and that 
thereupon I and the Bp. of London writ to the King to have 
him submit to the court/ He confesses he was dismissed 
upon his appeal, till his Majesty s pleasure was further known. 
And it was our duty, considering what a breach this would 
make upon the jurisdiction of the court, to inform his 
Majesty of it ; and we did so. The King declared, that he 
should submit to the court, as is confessed by himself. Then 
he says, c because he would not submit to the court, he was 
censured notwithstanding his appeal/ And he well deserved 
it, that would not be ruled by his Majesty, to whom he had 
appealed. And the Commission had power to do what they 
did. Besides, himself confesses, all this was done by the 
High- Commission, not by me. Nor doth he urge any threat, 
promise, or solicitation of mine, any way to particularise the 
act upon me ; and further, he is single, and in his own cause. 
XI. Then followed the last charge of this day, which was the 
patent granted for the fines in the High-Commission for 
finishing the west end of St. Paul s, cried out upon as illegal, 
and extorted from the King, and such as took all power from 

d [See Extrav. Com. lib. i. tit. De sanctam/ in lib. Extrav. p. 208. Corp. 
Majorit. et Obcd. cap. 1. Unain J"ur. Can. torn, iii.] 


him for the space of the ten years, for which time it was Die 
granted. This is the fourth time that St. Paul s is struck at. Octam 
My Lords, let it come as often as it will, my project and 
endeavour in that work was honest and honourable, to both 
church and kingdom of England. No man in all this search 
and pursuit hath been able to charge me with the turning of 
any one penny, or pennyworth, to other use than was limited 
to me. I took a great deal of care and pains about the work, 
and cannot repent of anything I did in that service, but of 
human frailty. And whereas tis said, this patent was 
extorted from his Majesty; as there is no proof offered 
for it, so is there no truth in it. (154) For his Majesty s 
piety was so forward, that nothing needed to be extorted 
from him. Thus went I on, bona fide, and took the prime 
direction of the kingdom for drawing the patent ; the L. 
Keeper Coventry 6 , Mr. Noy f , and Sir Henr. Martin z. And 
therefore if anything be found against law in it, it cannot be 
imputed to me, who took all the care I could to have it 
beyond exception. And I marvel what security any man 
shall have, that adventures upon any great and public work 
in this kingdom; if such counsel cannot be trusted for 
drawing up of his warrant. " And whereas it was said, this 
patent for the ten years space took away both justice and 
mercy from the King : that s nothing so. For whatever the 
words be to enable me the better for that work, yet these 
being inseparable from him, may be used by him, notwith 
standing this or any other patent. And if these be insepa 
rable (as tis granted they are) , no inseparable thing can be 
taken away ; or if it be taken, tis void in law, and the King 
is where he was in the exercise of his right, both for justice 
and mercy. And so I answered Mr. Brown s summary 
301 charge against me ; and as for that which he further urged 
concerning S. Gregory s church, Mr. Inigo Jones and others 
were trusted with that whole business, and were censured for 
it in this present Parliament h . In all which examination, no 

1 [Originally, And the Ld. Keeper was so careful (to his honour I speak it) 
that he would needs draw the The sentence was not completed ; the words 
are crossed out.] 

e [See above, p. 167, note &.] h [See Nalson s Collection, vol. i. 

f [Attorney-General.] pp. 728,729, 771.] 

s [Judge of the Prerogative Court.] 


Die part of the charge fell on me 1 / And because here are so 

many things urged about free-chapels, lay-fees, patents, ap 
peals, and the like, I humbly desire a salvo may be entered 
for me, and that my counsel may be heard for matter of law, 
if any doubt stick with your Lps. 

This day ended, I did, according to my resolution for 
merly taken, move the Lords for means, considering my 
charge in coming, and how oft I had attended and was not 
heard. Their Lps. considered of my motion, and sent me 
out word I should petition them. I did humbly petition their 

Mali 6. Lps., May 6. My petition was presently sent down to the 
House of Commons, that so by both Houses it might be 
recommended to the Committee for Sequestrations *. But 
upon a speech in the House of Commons, that it was fit to 
see what would become of me, before they troubled them 
selves with thinking of means for me, my petition was cast 

1 [ And if these . . . fell on me. on opposite page.] 

[The following is the entry in the venue of his archbishopric having been 

Lords Journals : now two years under sequestration, 

" Die Mercurii, 8 die Mali. Upon his goods seized ; therefore desired 
reading the petition of William, Arch- that some fitting, present, timely pro- 
bishop of Canterbury, prisoner in the portion may be timely (sic) allotted 
Tower, showing/ That having no other him, for his present maintenance : 
means than by this his humble peti- " Hereupon this House ordered, 
tion to renew his most humble motion That this petition be recommended to 
made to your Lordships at the bar the House of Commons ; and desired 
for some support, according to the that such course may be taken for his 
necessity of his occasions of attending relief herein as is usual in things of 
before your Lordships, the whole re- this nature."] 



AT my parting from the House, I was ordered to appear 
again on Thursday, May 9 1 . But then fairly put off by an Mali 9. 
order (sent to the Lieutenant of the Tower) to Monday, May 
13, so the scorn and charge of that day was scaped. But then Mail 13. 
I appeared according to this order, and had scorn plenty, for 
what I escaped the day before. Arid, after long attendance, 
was dismissed again unheard, and had Thursday, May 16, 
assigned unto me. That day held, and proceeded thus. 


The first charge of this day was about a reversion of the I. 
town-clerk s office of Shrewsbury 2 to one Mr. Lee, which he Mail 16, 
desired might be inserted into the new charter 3 . First, Mr. ~. 
Lee is single here, and in his own case. Secondly, it appears 
by his own confession, out of the mouth of Mr. Barnard, that 
there was a reference of this business to those Lords to whom 
Shrewsbury charter was referred. For he says, that Mr. 
Barnard told him his business was stayed, and he thought 
by me, but did not know whether the Lord Keeper s hand 
were not in it : so it seems by himself, this was done by the 
Lords referees, and not by me. Thirdly, I did not then 
think, nor do now, that the reversion of a place to be sold for 
three hundred pound 4 , (as he confesses that was,) was fit to 
be put into a town charter ; but yet neither I nor tlje Ld. 
Keeper did anything in that stop, but what we acquainted 
302 his Majesty with, and had his approbation of. And, whereas 
he says, that he acquainted the Right Honourable the E. of 
Dorset a with (155)the stay that was made, and that hereupon 
his Lp. should say, Have we two kings ? I cannot believe 

1 [There originally followed here, and afterwards erased, After scorn by the 
way, and long attendance there, I was sent back unheard. And command, d to 
be there again on Monday, Mail 13. Then put off again to Thursday, Mail 16; 
but this was ] 

of Shrewsbury in margin.] 3 [Originally, of Shrewsbury. ] 

for three hundred pound/ in margin.] 

a [Edward Sackville, fourth Earl of Dorset of that family. See vol. iii. 
p. 151, note *.] 


Die Nono. that honourable lord would so say, unless he were much 
abused by Mr. Lee s information, both in regard of his love 
to me ; and in regard it could not proceed from a man of so 
great a judgment as that lord is. For, I beseech your Lps. 
consider, may not lords, to whom a business is referred, give 
his Majesty good reason to alter his mind in some particulars 
which they have debated, and not he ? And may not this 
be done, without any one of them taking on him to be a 
second king ? 

II. The second charge was laid on me by Sir Arthur Hasel- 
rigg : (which should have come in the day before, as Mr. 
Nicolas said, but that Sir Arthur was absent in the necessary 
service of the State). Sir Arthur being single, and in his own 
case, says, that Sir John Lambe presented a blind parson to 
a living of his. If Sir John did that, or any unworthy thing 
else, aetatem habet, let him answer for himself. He says 
further, that this living is an impropriation, and so a lay-fee 
by law ; and that when he told me so much, I made him this 
answer, That if I lived, no man should name or stand upon 
his lay-fee. I conceive, my Lords, here s a great mistake in 
the main. For I have been credibly informed, and do believe, 
that benefice is presentative, and so no lay-fee. And then 
there s no fault to present unto it, so the clerk be fit. 
Secondly, there is a main mistake in my words, which I 
remember well, and where it was that I spake them. My 
words, under this gentleman s favour, and your Lps. , were 
these, and no other, That I had good information that the 
benefice was presentative, and that if I lived, I hoped to order 
it so, that no man should make a presentative benefice a lay- 
fee ; there were too many of them already. Thirdly, if I did 
speak the words as they are charged, if they come within 
that statute of six months, so often mentioned, to that I refer 
myself. Whatsoever the bird at this time of the year sings ; 
as Mr. Nicolas was pleased to put it upon me. And truly, 
my Lords, I could easily return all his bitterness upon him 
self, could it befit my person, my present condition, or my 

III. The third charge was about the refusing of a pardon, which 
Mrs. Bastwick said she produced in the High-Commission 
Court, some nine or ten years since : and she adds, that 


I should then say, it should not serve his turn/ But this Die Nono. 
was no rejecting of the pardon ; for she confesses I said, 
I would move his Majesty about it/ So that if it did not 
serve his turn, it was from the King himself, upon motion 
made and reason given, not from any power assumed by the 
High-Commission or myself. And the act, whatever it were, 
was the act of the whole court, not mine. As for the words 
(if mine), I give the same answer as before, notwithstanding 
Mr. Nicolas his bird. 

The fourth charge was, that whereas there was a proclama- IV. 
tion to be printed about the Pacification with the Scots, it 
was suddenly stopped, and an order after for burning of the 
303 Pacification. First, Mr. Hunscot b is single in this charge. 
Secondly 1 , whatsoever was done in this, was by order of 
Council : and himself names an order, which could not come 
from me. Thirdly, he charges me with nothing but that I 
sent word the proclamation was to be stayed : which if I did, 
I did it by command. Howsoever, this concerns the Scottish 
business, and therefore to the Act of Oblivion I refer myself. 
" With this, that I see by this testimony, Mr. Hunscourt (for 
I took his name uncertainly) hath not yet forgotten, ( Thou 
shalt commit adultery / So desirous he is to catch me at 
the press." 

The fifth charge was about a benefice in Northampton- V. 
shire, in the case of Mr. Fautrye, and Mr. Johnson, and Dr. 
BeaVs d succeeding them e . In which broken business (for 
such it was), first, that business all along was acted by the 
High-Commission, not by me. Secondly, that though in 
the case of simony the benefice be lost, ipso facto ; yet that 
(156) must be proved before the incumbent can be thrust out, 
and another instituted ; else churchmen were in a miserable 
condition for their livelihood. Excommunication is in many 
1 [ Mr. Hunscot . . . Secondly/ in margin.] 

b [Joseph Hunscot. See above, pp. e [Peter Fantrart (called Fawtrard 

79, 165.] by Baker, Hist, of Northamptonshire, 

c [Referring to the gross misprint vol. ii. p. 205) was presented to Pau- 

in the edition of the Bible, for which lerspury, April 6, 1630 (Rymer, Feed, 

the printers were fined.] P. 146 [of VIII. iii. 166) ; Ezekiel Johnson, on 

orig. MS. See above, p. 165]. Dec. 2, 1631 (ibid. p. 223) ; and William 

d [William Beale was elected Master Beale, Oct. 31, 1 637 (ibid. IX. iii. 144). 

of S. John s College, Cambridge, in In all these cases the living is said 

1633. He was one of the chief sufferers to have been vacant by reason of 

in that Univ. from the Puritans.] simony.] 


Die Nono. cases void in law, ipso facto, and yet, ante latam sententiam, 
till sentence be orderly pronounced against it, no man shall 1 
be subjected to those fearful consequences which follow upon 
it. " And upon this ground of natural equity, that in the 
statute concerning the uniformity of common prayer proceeds, 
where tis said, that a party once convicted for depraving the 
Common-Prayer Book, and relapsing into the same crime, 
shall be deprived of all his spiritual promotions, ipso facto f . 
But how ? without any legal proceedings ? No : God forbid. 
For the words preceding immediately in that statute, are, that 
he must be first legally convicted of that criminal relapse / and 
then follows ipso facto, and not before 2 :" and therefore the 
superinstitution, before the simony tried and judged, was 
illegal ; beside the great danger to the parishioners while two 
parsons and their several friends are scrambling for the tithes. 
Secondly, Fautrye was not censured for the original cause of 
simony, but for an intruder, and colluder too, with Jeames 
to abuse the King s grant of the benefice. Thirdly, it seems 
Fautrye had no better opinion of his own cause : for he went 
to his benefice in Jarsey, and set not his title on foot again 
till after seven years, and that I think was when he heard 
that Mr. Johnson was a pretender to it. And his bond upon 
the sentence was to make a final peace. For the prohibition, 
which he says was refused, I have answered that before in 
the charge about prohibitions. Besides, it appears by law, 
that as prohibitions may be granted in some cases, so in some 
cases they may be refused e. For Dr. Beal, there is not the 
least show of proof offered, that I brought him in ; if to do 
so be a crime. 

Thus far Mr. Fautrye went. As for Mr. Johnson s title, 
he says, that the Lords ordered it for him, and declared that 
we in the High-Commission could put no man out of his 
freehold. Where first, if your Lps. have ordered this busi 
ness, I must crave to know how far I shall have leave to 
speak to it: for if there be any errors charged upon 3 the 
sentence given in the High-Commission, if they may not be 
spoken to, they cannot be satisfied. This I am sure of, the 

1 [ it, no man shall originally him, he shall not ] 

2 [ And upon . . . before : on opposite page.] 

3 [ charged upon in margin.] 

f 1 Eliz. c. 2. [ 5.] * 13 Ed. I. 


304 Commission hath power to deprive. For the statute gives it Die Nono. 
power to use all ecclesiastical and spiritual censures h / of 
which deprivation is known to be one l . And that power is 
expressly given, to deprive some offenders of all their spiritual 
promotions,, by the statute following 1 . Therefore I think it 
follows necessarily, either that we have power over freehold 
in that case; or else, that a benefice is not a freehold. But 
I have no reason howsoever to speak anything (were I left 
never so free) against your Lps/ order, which very honourably 
left Dr. Beal to the law ; as tis confessed by Johnson. 

Besides these two in their own cause, one Mr. Jenkins is pro 
duced, " but to what end I know not, unless it be to bespatter 
Dr. Beal." He says, that seven years since, Dr. Beal was 
Vice -Chancellor of Cambridge k ; that in his sermon he then 
inveighed bitterly against the power of Parliaments, and 
named some unsavoury speeches of his, both concerning 
their persons and proceedings. Surely, if Dr. Beal did as is 
testified, he was much to blame. But what is this to me ? 
If it be said, I did not punish him : how could I punish 
that I knew not ? And I profess I heard not of it till now 
at bar. If it be said, I did prefer him : that I do abso 
lutely deny ; and neither Mr. Jenkins, nor any other, offers 
the least proof, that I knew the one, or did the other. 

The sixth charge was concerning the Statutes of the Uni- VI. 
versity of Oxford, in which, and the cathedrals of the new 
erection, Mr. Nicolas says, I took on me to be an universal 
lawgiver. Many such offices he bestows upon me, which God 
knows, and I believe he too, that I never affected : no, my 
Lords, the great necessities of that University called upon 
me for it : their statutes lay in a miserable confused heap : 
when any difficulty arose, they knew not where to look for 
remedy or direction. Then into the Convocation-House, and 
make a new statute ; and that many times proved contrary 
to an old one concerning the same business. Men in the 
meantime sworn to both, which could not possibly be kept 
together. By this means perjury was in a manner unavoid 
able : and themselves confess in their Register (which is now 

1 [ For the statute . . . one. on opposite page.] 

h 1 Eliz. c. 1, 8. k [Beale was appointed Vice-Chan- 

1 1 Eliz. c, 2. cellor in 1634.] 


Die Nono i n court) that till this was done, they did in a sort swear, 
that they might be forsworn 1 . 

(157) Besides, my Lords, I did not abolish any the old 
books, in which the statutes lay so confused, some in one 
book, and some in another ; but left them all entire in the 
University, in case in any after-times any use might be made 
of them. Nor did I with them as some ancient philosophers 
are said to have done with the works of some that went 
before them : that is, make them away, to advance their own 
honour the more, as if without any help of former pains, they 
had done all themselves. Holding it honour more than 
enough for me, that God had so highly blessed me in this 
work, as to finish and settle those statutes ; which the greatest 
men in their times, Cardinal Wolsey m first, and after him 
Cardinal Pole n , assayed, but left as imperfect as they found 
them. Neither did I anything in this work, but by the 
consent of the University, and according to an Act (and a 
delegacy thereby appointed) of their own Convocation . 

Mr. Nicolas says, there is a rasure in one of the Acts, 
and supplied in other ink/ I told your Lps. then presently, 395 
(being loth to lie never so little under such an imputation,) 
that l if there be any such, it must be charged upon the Uni 
versity, not upon me ; for those records were never in my 
hands, nor is it so much as said they were. And since I 
withdrew to make my answer, I have viewed the record, and 
an alteration or addition there is; and tis a known hand. 
"Tis Dr. Duppa s hand, now L. Bishop of Salisbury, and then 
Vice-Chancellor P, who I doubt not but is able to give a good 
account of what he did therein, and why. And for aught 
appears, tis nothing but the amendment of some slip, which 
their ignorant register French 1 had failed in, and the Vice- 
Chancellor thought it safest to mend with his own hand. 
And for my own part, if ever I did anything worth thanks 
1 [ being loth . . . that in margin.] 

I Jurati ante, ut perjuri evaderent, pp. 132, 133.] 

[Reg. Conv. R.] fol. 69. [In the letter [See Hist, of Chancellorship, p. 

in which the University submitted 102, note *.] 

the Statutes to the ordering of the P [Duppa was Vice-Chancellor from 

Archbishop, quoted in Hist, of Chan- July 19, 1632, to July 26, 1634.]; 

cellorship, p. 91.] i [John French, Fellow of Merton 

m [See Wood s Annals, ad ann. 1518, College, elected Registrar in 1629. 

1520, pp. 15, 18, 19.] Wood terms him a careless man, 

II [See Wood s Annals, ad an. 1556, though a good scholar. (F. 0. i. 452.)] 


from the public in all my life, I did it in this work for that Die Nono. 
University. And I wish with all my heart the times were so 
open, as that I might have the University s testimony, both 
of me and it. " Since I cannot, a great lord present in the 
House, when this charge was laid against me, supplied in part 
their absence. For he was overheard say to another lord, 
* I think my Ld. Archbishop hath done no good work in all 
his life, but these men will object it as a crime against him 
before they have done/ 

With this charge about the statutes, it was let fall, (and 
I well know why ; " it was to heat a noble person then 
present 1 / ) that I procured myself to be chosen Chancellor 
of that University. If I had so done, it might have been a 
great ambition in me, but surely no treason. But, my Lords, 
I have proof great store, might I be enabled to fetch it from 
Oxford, that I was so far from endeavouring to procure this 
honour to myself, as that I laboured by my letters for an 
other. And tis well known, that when they had chosen me, 
I went instantly to his Majesty, so soon as ever I heard it, 
and humbly besought him, that I might refuse it, as well 
foreseeing the envy that would follow me for it ; and it did 
plentifully everyway. But this for some reasons his Majesty 
would not suffer me to do 1 . 

Then were objected against me divers particulars contained 
in those statutes 1 . 1. As first, the making of new oaths. The 
charters of the University are not new, and they gave power 
to make statutes for themselves, and they have ever been upon 
oath. 2. The next illegality is, that men are tied to obey the 
Proctors in singing the Litany. This is ancient 3 , and in use 
long before ever I came to the University, and it is according 
to the Liturgy of the Church of England established by law. 
3. Thirdly, the statute of bannition from the University 1 . 3 
But there is nothing more ancient in the University Statutes 
than this. 4. Fourthly, that nothing should be proposed in 
Convocation, but what was consented unto among the Heads 

1 [P. 144. is written in the margin, against this place, in the Archbishop s 
hand, referring to the passage inserted in that page of the original MS., but 
belonging to this place. See above, p. 161.] 

r [Philip, Earl of Pembroke, his B), fol. 139 b.] 

competitor for the Chancellorship.] l [See tit. xv. De Moribus Confor- 

* [Corp. Stat. tit. ix. sect. i. 5, from mandis, passim.] 
the Book of the Senior Proctor (marked 


Die Nono. of Colleges first ; which was said to be against the liberty of 
the students 11 . The young Mrs. of Arts, void of experience, 
were grown so tumultuous, that no peace could be kept in the 
University, till my worthy predecessor, the Right Honourable 
William E. of Pembroke, settled this order among them. As 
he did also upon the same grounds settle the present way of 
the (158) choice of their Proctors x . In both which, I did but 
follow, and confirm (for so much as lay in me) the good and 
peaceable grounds which he had laid in those two businesses. 306 
" And Mr. Brown, who in the summing up of my charge 
urged this against me, mainly mistook in two things. The 
one was, that he said, this inhibition of proposals was in Con 
gregations : whereas it was only in Convocations, where more 
weighty businesses are handled. The other was, that this 
stay of proposals was made, till I might be first acquainted 
with them/ No ; it was but till the Heads of Colleges had 
met, and considered of them, for avoiding of tumultuary 
proceedings. And when my honourable predecessor made 
that order, it was highly commended everywhere ; and is it 
now degenerated into a crime, because it is made up into a 
statute 1 ?" 5. Fifthly, that some things are referred to 
arbitrary penalties V And that some things are so referred is 
usual in that University, and many colleges have a particular 
statute for it. Nor is this any more power than ordinary 
schoolmasters have, which have not a statute-law for every 
punishment they use in schools. And in divers things, the 
old known statute is, that the Vice-Chancellor shall proceed 
grosso modo, that is, without the regular forms of law, for 
the more speedy ending of differences among the scholars. 
6. Sixthly, that the statute made by me against conventicles 
is very strict 7 -/ But for these that statute is express, De 
illicitis Conventiculis, and I hope such as are unlawful may be 
both forbid, and punished. Besides, it is according to the 
charter of Richard the Second to that University a . 7. The 
seventh was the power of discommoning/ But this also hath 
ever been in power and in usage in that University ; as is com- 
1 [ And Mr. Brown, . . . statute V on opposite page.] 

u [Corp. Stat. tit. x. sect. ii. 2; bus Conformand is, passim.] 
and tit. xiii.] z [Tit. xv. 12 [leg. 13]. 

1 [See Wood s Annals, ad an. 1629, a [As is expressly stated in the 

p. 365 ; and Corp. Stat. Append, p. 56.] statute itself.] 

y [See Corp. Stat. tit. xv. De Mori- 


monly known to all Oxford-men. And no longer since than Die Nono. 
King James his time, Bishop King b , then Vice-Chancellor, 
discommoned three or four townsmen together. 8. Next, 
that students were bound to go to prison upon the Vice- 
Chancellor s or Proctors command c . } This also was ancient, 
and long before my coming to the University. And your 
Lps. may be sure the delegacy appointed by themselves would 
not have admitted it, had it not been ancient and usual. 
Lastly, about the stay of granting graces, unless there were 
testimony from the bishop of the diocese V This was for no 
graces, but of such as live not resident in the University, and 
so they could not judge of their manners and conversation. 
And for their conformity to the Church of England, none (as 
I conceive) can be a fitter witness than the bp. of the diocese 
in which they resided. And, my Lords, for all these thus 
drawn up by some of their own body, I obtained of his 
Majesty his broad seal for confirmation e : and therefore no 
one thing in them is by any assumption of papal power, as 
tis urged, but by the King s power only. 

Then followed the seventh charge, about the statutes of VII. 
some cathedral churches. First, my Lords, for this I did it 
by letters-patent from the King, bearing date Mar. 31, 
decimo Caroli f , and is extant upon record. And all that was 
done was per juris remedia, and so nothing intended against 
law, nor done, that I know. They had extreme need of 
statutes, for all lay loose for want of confirmation, and 1 men 
did what they listed : and I could not but observe it, for I 
was Dean of Gloucester, where I found it so. In seeking to 
remedy this, I had nothing but my labour for my pains, and 
307 now this accusation to boot. The particulars urged are, 
1. that I had ordered, that nothing should be done in these 
statutes, me inconsulo. And I had great reason for it. 
1 [ for want of confirmation, and in margin.] 

b [Dr. John King, Dean of Christ- (p. 304).] 

Church (afterwards Bishop of London), c [Tit. xv. 2, and passim.] 

was Vice- Chancellor, 1607-1610. Wood d Tit. ix. [sect, iii.] 2. 

terms him " a fierce maintainer and e [The King s ratification is prefixed 

defender of the University privileges." to the Corpus Statutorum.] 

(Fasti, p. 118.) See a long account f [The document is recorded in the 

of these proceedings in Wood s Annals, Archbishop s register. It is erroneously 

ad an. 1609, pp. 299-304. They ended dated in Wilkins Cone. (torn. iv. pp. 

in the discommoning of several of the 532, 533,) anno regni nostri decimo 

citizens, whose names are there given tertio. ] 


Die Nono. For since I was principally trusted in that work by his 
Majesty, the King, if any complaint were made, would expect 
the account from me. And how could I give it, if other 
men might do all, and I not be so much as consulted before 
they passed ? 

2. That I made a statute against letting leases into three 
lives s. But first, my Lds., the statute which makes it 
lawful to let leases for one-and-twenty years, or three lives, 
hath this limitation in it, that they shall not let for any 
more years than are limited by the said colleges or churches 11 . 
Now in Winchester Church, and some other, the old l local 
statute is most plain, that they shall let no lease into lives. 
Let the dean and prebendaries answer their own acts and 
their consciences as they can. And in those statutes which 
I did not find pregnant to that purpose, I did not make the 
statute absolute, but left them free to renew all such leases 
as were anciently in lives before. And this give me leave to 
say to your Lps. without offence ; If but a few more leases 
be granted into lives, no bishop nor cathedral church shall 
be able to subsist. And (159) this is considerable also, that, 
as the state of the Church yet stands, the laity have the 
benefit, by the leases which they hold, of more than five 
parts of all the bishops , deans and chapters , and college 
revenues in England. " And shall it be yet an eyesore to 
serve themselves with the rest of their own ? This evidence 
Mr. Browne, whose part it was to sum up the evidence 
against me at the end of the charge, wholly omitted : for 
what cause he best knows 2 ." 

VIII. The next charge was about my Injunctions in my visita 
tion of Winton and Sarum, for the taking down of some 
houses. But they were such, as were upon consecrated 
ground, and ought not to have been built there ; and yet 
with caution sufficient to preserve the lessees from over 
much damage 3 . For it appears apud acta, that they were 
not to be pulled down till their several leases were expired l . 

1 [ old in margin.] 2 [ This evidence . . . knows. on opposite page.] 

3 [There originally followed in this place, And since the law of the land 
hath provided. The words were afterwards erased.] 

* [See the letters of King Charles I. l [This does not so appear in the 

to Laud on this subject, in Wilkins Injunctions to Winchester Cathedral. 

Concilia, torn. iv. pp. 493, 494. J The Injunctions to Salisbury Cathe- 

h 13 Eliz. cap. 10, penult. dral have not been met with.] 


And that they were houses not built long since, but by Die Nono. 
them ; and that all this was to be done, to the end * that the 
Church might suffer no damage by them : and that this 
demolition was to be made 2 juxta Decreta regni, according 
to the Statutes of the kingdom. Therefore nothing enjoined 
contrary to law: or if anything were, the injunction took 
not place, by the very tenor of that which was charged. 
"Mr. Browne omitted this charge also, though he hung 
heavily upon the like at St. Paul s, though there was satis 
faction given, and not here 3 ." 

The ninth charge was my intended visitation of both the IX. 
Universities, Oxford and Cambridge. For my troubles began 
then to be foreseen by me, and I visited them not. 1. This 
was urged as a thing directly against law. But this I con 
ceive cannot be, so long as it was with the King s knowledge, 
and by his warrant. 2. Secondly, because all power of the 
King s visitations was saved in the warrant, and that with 
consent of all parts. 3. Thirdly, because nothing in this 
was surreptitiously gotten from the King, all being done at a 
most full Council-table, and great counsel at law heard on 
308 both sides k . 4. Fourthly, because it did there appear, that 
three of my predecessors did actually visit the Universities, 
and th&tjure Ecclesice SUCK metropoliticce. 5. Fifthly, no im 
munity pleaded, why the Archbishop should not visit ; for the 
instance against Cardinal Poole is nothing. For he attempted 
to visit, not only by the right of his See, but by his power 
legatine from the Pope ; whereas the University charters are 
express, that such power l of visitation cannot be granted per 
Bullas Papales. And yet now tis charged against me, that 
T challenged this 4 by Papal power. " Mr. Browne wholly neg- 

Hhat all ... end originally to this end ] 

* that this . . . made in margin. Originally all this ] 

Mr. Browne omitted . . . here. on opposite page.] 

that I challenged this in margin. Originally that I did this now ] 

k [See an account of the proceedings Universities, in right of his See, about 

in Rushworth s Collections, vol. ii. pp. the year 1635. Which being seized on 

324, seq. Some papers relating to the by Pryn, among his other papers at 

Archbishop s claim to visit the Uni- Lambeth, were by him, after the 

versity of Cambridge, will be found Archbishop s death, published in his 

in vol. v. pp. 555, seq.}* own name, with this title, "The Plea 

1 The Archbishop had collected of the University of Oxford refuted, 

many papers, decrees, and precedents, &c." London, 1647. Eight sheets in 

to assert his privilege of visiting the 4to. H. W. 

LAUD. VOL. iv. O 


Die Nono. lected this charge also, which, making such a show, I think 

he would not have done, had he found it well grounded." 
X. The tenth charge was my visitation of Merton College 
in Oxford. The witness, Sir Nathaniel Brent m , the Warden 
of the college, and principally concerned in that business. 
1. He said, first, f that no visitation held so long/ But if he 
consult his own office, he may find one much longer, held 
and continued at All- Souls College by my worthy predecessor, 
Archbishop Whitgift n . 2. Secondly, he urged that I should 
say I would be Warden for seven years/ If I did so say, 
there was much need I should make it good. 3. Thirdly, 
that one Mr. Rich. Nevil, Fellow of that college, lay abroad 
in an ale-house, that a wench was got with child in that 
house, and he accused of it ; and that this was complained of 
tome; and Sir Nath. Brent accused for conspiring with the 
ale-wife against Nevil. I am not here to accuse the one or 
defend the other. But the case is this. This cause between 
them was public, and came to hearing in the Vice- Chan 
cellor s Court, witnesses examined, Mr. Nevil acquitted, and 
the ale-wife punished. In all this I had no hand. Then in 
my visitation it was again complained of to me. I liked not 
the business ; but forbare to do anything in it, because it had 
been legally censured upon the place. " This part of the 
charge Mr. Browne urged against me in the House of Com 
mons, and I gave it the same answer/ 4. Lastly, when 
I sat to hear the main business of that college, Sir Nathaniel 
Brent was beholding to me that he continued Warden. For 
in Archbp. Warham s time, a predecessor of his was expelled 
for less than was proved against him . And I found that 
true which one of my visitors had formerly told me, namely, 
(160) That Sir Nathaniel Brent had so carried himself in that 
college, as that if he were guilty of the like, he would lay his 

m [Nathaniel Brent, who had mar- following year, was compelled to re- 

ried the niece of Abp. Abbot, was sign it in 1650; and died in 1652. 

made Commissary of the Diocese (Wood, Ath. Ox. iii. 333 335.)] 

of Canterbury, and Vicar-General. n [Strype mentions two visitations of 

Though in these capacities he carried All Souls College, by Abp. Whitgift, 

on Abp. Laud s visitation, on the in 1592 and 1602.] 

change of his fortune he sided with [The person here spoken of, was 

his enemies, took the Covenant, and Richard Rawlms, who was deprived of 

openly joined the rebels. He was de- his Wardenship in 1521, and in 1523 

prived of his Wardenship by the King was made Bishop of S. David s. (Wood, 

in 1645 ; and though restored the Ath. Ox. ii. 743.)] 


key under the door, and be gone, rather than come to answer Die None, 
it. Yet I did not think it fit to proceed so rigidly. But 
while I was going to open some of the particulars against 
him, Mr. Nicolas cut me off, and told the Lords, this was 
to scandalize their witnesses. So I forbare. 

Then followed the last charge of this day, concerning a XL 
book of Dr. Bastwick s, for which he was censured in the 
High- Commission. The witnesses in this charge were three. 
Mr. Burton, a mortal enemy of mine, and so he hath showed 
himself. Mrs. Bastwick, a woman and a wife, and well 
tutored: for she had a paper, and all written which she 
309 had to say ; though I saw it not till twas too late. And 
Mr. Hunscot, a man that comes in to serve all turns against 
me, since the sentence passed against the printers, for, Thou 
shalt commit adultery P/ 

1 . In the particulars of this charge, tis first said, that this 
book was written contra Episcopos Latiales^. But how cun 
ningly soever this was pretended, tis more than manifest, it 
was purposely written and divulged against the bishops and 
Church of England. 2. Secondly, that I said that Christian 
bishops were before Christian kings : so Burton and Mrs. 
Bastwick. And with due reverence to all kingly authority 
be it spoken, who can doubt but that there were many Chris 
tian bishops before any king was Christian ? 3. Thirdly, 
Mr. Burton says, that I applied those words in the Psalm, 
"Whom thou mayest make princes in all lands r ," to the 
bishops. For this, if I did err in it, many of the Fathers of 
the Church misled me, who interpret that place so s . And if 
I be mistaken, tis no treason. But I shall ever follow their 
comments before Mr. Burton s. 4. Fourthly, Mrs. Bastwick 
says that I then said, no bishop and no king : if I did say 
so, I learned it of a wise and experienced author, King James, 
who spake it out and plainly in the Conference at Hampton- 

P [See above, pp. 79, 165, 185.] Episcopi . . . Constitues eos principes 

i [The title of Bastwick s book was, super omnem tcrram. H8ec est Ca- 

" Flagellum Pontificis et Episcoporum tholica Ecclesia; filii ejus constituti 

Latialium." It was published in 1635.] sunt principes super omnem terrain, 

r p sa ]. x iv. 17. filii ejus constituti sunt pro patribus. 

" [It may be sufficient to quote the S. Aug. Enarr. in Ps. xliv. 32. Op., 

language of S. Augustine : " Quid est, torn. iv. coll. 564. C. D., 565. A. Other 

Pro patribus tuis nati sunt tibi filii r passages of the Fathers, to the same 

Patres missi suiit Apostoli, per Aposto- effect, are quoted in Hickes s Treatises, 

lis filii nati sunt tibi, constituti sunt vol. ii. pp. 344 346.] 

O 2 


Die Nono. Court *. And I hope it cannot be treason in me to repeat it. 
5. Fifthly, Mrs. Bastwick complained, f that I committed her 
husband close prisoner/ Not I, but the High-Commission ; 
not close prisoner to his chamber, but to the prison, not to 
go abroad with his keeper. Which is all the close imprison 
ment which I ever knew that court use. 6. Lastly, the pinch 
of this charge is, ( that I said, I received my jurisdiction from 
God, and from Christ, contrary to an Act of Parliament, which 
says Bps. derive their jurisdiction from the King V This is 
witnessed by all three, and that Dr. Bastwick read the statute. 
That statute speaks plainly of jurisdiction in for o contentioso, 
and places of judicature, and no other. And all this forensical 
jurisdiction, I and all Bps. in England derive from the Crown. 
But my order, my calling, my jurisdiction in foro conscienticR, 
that is from God, and from Christ, and by divine and aposto 
lical right. And of this jurisdiction it was that I then spake 
(if I named jurisdiction at all, and not my calling in gene 
ral). For I then sate in the High-Commission, and did 
exercise the former 1 jurisdiction under the broad seal, and 
could not be so simple to deny the power by which I then 
sate. Beside, the Canons of the Church of England, to which 
I have subscribed, are plain for it x . Nay further : the use 
and exercise of my jurisdiction in foro conscientia, may not 
be but by the leave and power of the King within his domi 
nions. And if bishops and presbyters be all one order (as 
these men contend for), then bishops must be jure divinOj for 
so they maintain that presbyters are. " This part of the 
charge Mr. Browne pressed in his report to the House of 
Commons : and when I gave this same answer, he in his 
reply said nothing but the same over and over again, save 
that he said, I fled to he knew not what inward calling and 
jurisdiction ; which point as I expressed it, if he understood 
not, he should not have undertaken to judge me." 
1 [ the former in margin.] 

* Conf. at Hampt. Court, [by Wil- u 37 Hen. VIII. cap. 17. [ 2.] 
liam Barlow,] p. 84. [p. 82. Lond. x Can. 1. 


310 CAP. XXXII. 

THE 16th of May I had an order from the Lords, for free Mali 16. 
access of four of my servants to me. 

On Friday, May 17, 1 received a note from the Committee, Mali 17. 
that they intended to proceed upon part of the sixth original 
Article remaining, and upon the seventh; which seventh 
Article follows in hac verba : 

That he hath traitorously endeavoured to alter and subvert 
God s true religion by law established in this realm, and 
instead thereof to set up Popish superstition and idolatry. 
And to that end hath declared and maintained in speeches 
and printed books, divers Popish doctrines and opinions, 
contrary to the Articles of Religion established. He hath 
urged and enjoined divers Popish and superstitious cere 
monies, without any warrant of law ; and hath cruelly 
persecuted those who have opposed the same, by corporal 
punishment and imprisonment ; and most unjustly vexed 
others ivho refused to conform thereunto, by ecclesiastical 
censures of excommunication, suspension, deprivation, and 
degradation, contrary to the law of this kingdom 1 . 


This day, May 20, Mr. Sergeant Wild undertook the busi- Mali 20, 
ness against me. And at his entrance he made a speech, Monday. 
being now to charge me with matter of religion. In this 
speech he spake of a tide which came not in all at once. 
And so he said it was in the intended alteration of religion. 
First a connivance, then a toleration, then a subversion. Nor 
this, nor that. But a tide it seems he will have of religion. 
(161) And I pray God His truth (the true Protestant religion 
here established) sink not to so low an ebb, that men may with 
ease wade over to that side, which this gentleman seems most 

1 [ That he hath . . . kingdom on opposite page.] 


Die to hate. He fears both ceremonies and doctrine/ But in 

cimo> both he fears where no fear is ; which I hope shall appear. 

He was pleased to begin with ( ceremonies/ 

I. In this he charged, first, e my chapel at Lambeth, and 
innovation in ceremonies there/ 

(1.) The first witness for this was Dr. Featly a ; he says, 
there were alterations since my predecessor s time/ And 
I say so too, or else my chapel must lie more undecently than 
is fit to express. He says, I turned the table north and 
south/ The injunction says it shall be so b . And then the 
innovation was theirs in going from, not mine in returning 
to that way of placing it. " Here Mr. Browne, in his last reply 
in the House of Commons, said, that I cut the injunction short, 
because in the words immediately following, tis ordered, that 311 
this place of standing shall be altered when the communion is 
administered/ But first, the charge against me is only about 
the place of it : of which that injunction is so careful, that it 
commands, f that when the communion is done, it be placed 
where it stood before/ Secondly, it was never charged 
against me, that I did not remove it at the time of commu 
nion ; nor doth the reason expressed in the injunction require 
it ; which is when the number of communicants is great, and 
that the minister may be the better heard of them/ Neither 
of which was necessary in my chapel, where my number was 
not great, and all might easily hear/ 

(2.) The second thing which Dr. Featly said, was in down 
right terms, that the chapel lay nastily, all the time he 
served in that house/ Was it one of my faults, too, to 
cleanse it? 

(3.) Thirdly, he says, the windows were not made up with 
coloured glass, till my time/ The truth is, they were all 
shameful to look on, all diversely patched, like a poor beggar s 
coat. Had they had all white glass, I had not stirred them. 
And for the crucifix, he confesses it was standing in my pre 
decessor s time, though a little broken : so I did but mend it, 

* [Dr. Daniel Featley, or Fairclough, account of the circumstances of his 

originally a chorister of Magdalen Col- dismissal. See Wood, Ath. Ox. iii. 

lege, afterwards Scholar and Fellow of 1 58, where mention is also made of 

Corpus Christi College, Oxford. He his other preferments.] 
became chaplain to A bp. Abbot about b Injuncfc. of Q. Eliz. fine. [VVil- 

1614, and left his service in 1625. His kins Cone. torn. iv. p. 188.] 
nephew, John Featley, gives a curious 


I did not set it up (as was urged against me). " And it was Die 
utterly mistaken by Mr. Brown c , that I did repair the story Decimo - 
of those windows, by their like in the Mass -book. No, but 
I, and my secretary, made out the story, as well as we could, 
by the remains that were unbroken. Nor was any proof at 
all offered, that I did it by the pictures in the Mass-book ; 
but only Mr. Pryn testified, that such pictures were there : 
whereas this argument is of no consequence ; There are such 
pictures in the Missal ; therefore I repaired my windows by 
them. The windows contain the whole story from the creation 
to the day of judgment : three lights in a window : the two 
side-lights contain the types in the Old Testament, and the 
middle light the antitype and verity of Christ in the New: 
and I believe the types are not in the pictures in the Missal. 
In the meantime, I know no crime or superstition in this 
history : and though Calvin do not approve images in churches, 
yet he doth approve very well of them which contain a history ; 
and says plainly, that these have their use in docendo et admo- 
nendo, in teaching and admonishing the people d : and if they 
have that use, why they may not instruct in the Church, as 
well as out, I know not. Nor do the Homilies in this parti 
cular differ much from Calvin." 

But here the statute of Ed. VI. was charged against me, 
which requires the destruction of all images, as well in glass- 
windows, as elsewhere V " And this was also earnestly pressed 
by Mr. Brown, when he repeated the sum of the charge 
against me in the House of Commons." To which I answered 
at both times : First, that the statute of Ed. VI. spake of 
other images ; and that images in glass- windows were neither 
mentioned nor meant in that law : the words of the statute 
are, Any images of stone, timber, alabaster, or earth ; graven, 
carved, or painted, taken out of any church, &c., shall be 
destroyed/ &c., and not reserved to any superstitious use. 
So here s not a word of glass- windows, nor the images that are 
in them. Secondly, that the contemporary practice (which 
312 is one of the best expounders of the meaning of any law) did 
neither destroy all coloured windows, though images were in 

c i n hi s reply. e Horn, of Idol. par. ii. torn. ii. p. 27. 

d Calv. i. Instit. c. 11. 12. [Op., fine. [pp. 166, 167. Oxf. 1814.] 
torn. ix. p. 22.] f 3 and 4 Ed. VI. c. 10. [ 2.] 


Die them in the Queen s time, nor abstain from setting np of new, 

both in her and King James his time. And as the body of 
this statute is utterly mistaken, so is the penalty too ; which 
* for the first and second offence is but a small fine ; and but 
imprisonment at the King s will for the third/ " A great 
way short of punishment for treason. And I could not but 
wonder that Mr. Brown should be so earnest in this point, 
considering he is of Lincoln s- Inn, where Mr. Pryn s zeal 
hath not yet beaten down the images of the Apostles in the 
fair windows of that chapel ; which windows also were set up 
new long since that statute of Edward VI.e And tis well 
known, that I was once resolved to have returned this upon 
Mr. Brown in the House of Commons, but changed my mind, 
lest thereby I might have set some furious spirit on work to 
destroy those harmless, goodly windows ; to the just dislike 
of that worthy Society." 

But to the statute Mr. Brown added, f that the destruction 
of all images, as well in windows, as elsewhere, were con 
demned h by the Homilies of the Church of England, and 
those Homilies confirmed in the Articles of Religion 1 , and the 
Articles by Act of Parliament. This was also urged before ; 
and my answer was, first, that though we subscribed generally 
to the doctrine of the Homilies, as good; yet we did not 
express, or mean thereby to justify and maintain every parti 
cular phrase or sentence contained in them. And, secondly, 
that the very words of the Article to which we subscribe, are, 
( That the Homilies do contain a godly and a wholesome 
doctrine, and necessary for those times. Godly, and whole 
some for all times ; but necessary for those, when people were 
newly weaned from the worship of images : afterwards, neither 
the danger, nor the scandal alike. " Mr. Brown in his reply 
said, that since the doctrine contained in the Homilie^ was 
wholesome and good, it must needs be necessary also for all 
times. But this worthy gentleman is herein much mistaken. 
Strong meat, as well spiritual as bodily, is good and whole 
some; but though it be so, yet if it had been necessary at 

[Sec a description of these win- h 1. c was commended, or com- 

dows in Winston on Glass Painting, mauded. [Abp. Bancroft suggests the 

p. 205. The figure of S. John the omission of the words, the destruc- 

Baptist was executed at the expense tion of. ] 

of Attorney-General Noy,] J Art. 35. 


all times, and for all men, the Apostle would never have fed Die 
the Corinthians with milk, and not with meat J : the meat 
always good in itself, but not necessary for them which were 
not able to bear it 1 ." 

(4.) The fourth thing which Dr. Featly testifies is, that 
there were bowings at the coming into the chapel, and going 
up to the communion-table, "This was usual in Queen 
Elizabeth s time, and of old, both among Jews, as appears in 
the story of Hezekiah, 2 Chro. xxix. 28 k , and among Chris 
tians, as is evident in Rhenanus his Notes upon Tertullian l : " 
and one of them, which have written against the late canons, 
confesses it was usual in the Queen s time ; but then adds, 
that that was a time of ignorance m / What, a time of such 
a reformation, and yet still a time of ignorance ? I pray God 
the opposite be not a time of profaneness, and all is well. 
" Mr. Brown, in the sum of his charge given me in the 
House of Commons, instanced in this also. I answered as 
before, with this addition, Shall I bow to men in each House 
of Parliament, and shall I not bow to God in His house, 
313 whither I do, or ought to come to worship (162) Him ? 
Surely I must worship God, and bow to Him, though neither 
altar nor communion -table be in the church." 

(5.) For organs, candlesticks, a picture of a history at the 
back of the altar, and copes at communions, and consecra 
tions/ all which Dr. Featly named. First, these things have 
been in use ever since the Reformation. And secondly, 
Dr. Featly himself did twice acknowledge that it was in my 
chapel, as it was at White-Hall; no difference. And it is not 
to be thought, that Queen Elizabeth and King James would 
have endured them all their time in their own chapel, had 
they been introductions for Popery. And for copes, they 
are allowed at times of communion, by the Canons of the 
Church n . So that these, all or any, are very poor motives, 
from whence to argue an alteration of religion/ 

1 [The last two paragraphs were inserted in the MS. on a separate sheet.] 

J 1 Cor. iii. 1, 2. ceu in haram sues?"] 

k 2 Chron. xxix. 28. m Bp. Morton de Missa, lib. vi. 

1 B. Rhenani Annot. in Tert. de cap. 5. [There is an error in this 

Coron. Mil. p. 40. [Franek. 1597. The reference, which the Editor is unable 

words alluded to seem to be, " Quis to correct.] 

ferat populum in templum irruentem, " Can. Eccles. Ang. 24. 


Die 2. The second witness against my chapel was Sir Nath. 

Decimo. ^rent. But he says not so much as Dr. Featly ; and in what 
he doth say, he agrees with him, saving that he cannot say 
whether the picture at the back of the communion-table were 
not there before my time. 

3. The third witness for this charge, was one Mr. Bore- 
man , who came into my chapel at prayers time, when I had 
some new plate to consecrate for use at the communion; 
and I think it was brought to me for that end by Dr. Featly. 
This man says, first, he then saw me bow, and wear a cope/ 
That s answered. Secondly, that he saw me consecrate 
some plate ; that in that consecration, I used some part of 
Solomon s prayer at the dedication of the temple ; and that 
in my prayer I did desire God to accept those vessels/ No 
fault in any of the three. For in all ages of the Church, 
especially since Constantino s time, that religion hath had 
public allowance, there have been consecrations of sacred 
vessels, as well as of churches themselves. And these inani 
mate things are holy, in that they are deputed and dedicated 
to the service of God i\ And we are said to minister about 
holy things V 1 Cor. ix. And the altar is said to sanctify 
the gift r , S. Matt, xxiii., which it could not do, if itself were 
not holy. So then, if there be no dedication of these things to 
God, no separation of them from common use, there s neither 
1 thing nor place holy. And then no sacrilege ; no 
difference between churches and common houses ; between 
holy-tables (so the injunction calls them) and ordinary 
tables 3 . But I would have no man deceive himself ; sacri 
lege is a grievous sin, and was severely punished even 
among the Heathen. And S. Paul s question puts it home, 
would we consider of it, Thou which abhorrest idols, com- 
mittest thou sacrilege i ? Rom. ii. Thou which abhorrest 
idols to the very defacing of church windows, dost thou, 
thou of all other, commit sacrilege, which the very wor- 

[The evidence of Samuel Bord- P [S.] Tho. [Aquin. Summ. Theol.] 

man is given in full by Prynne, Cant. p. iii. q. Ixiii. A. 6. Ad secuiidum. 

Doom, p. 65. A Samuel Bourman q 1 Cor. ix. 13. 

was instituted, July 20, 1641, to the r S. Matt, xxiii. 19. 

Rectory of S. Magnus, (Newc. Repert. s Injunct. of Q. Eliz. in fine. [Wil- 

vol.i. p. 399;) and as he retained his kins Cone, tom.iv. p. 188.] 

living through the whole of the Rebel- t Rom. ii. 22. 
lion, he was probably the same person.] 


shippers of idols punished? And this being so, I hope my Die 
use of a part of Solomon s prayer, or the words of my own Decimo - 
prayer, ( that God would be pleased to accept them, ) shall 
not be reputed faults. 

But here stepped in Mr. Pryn, and said, This was accord 
ing to the form in Missali Parvo. 1 But tis well known 
I borrowed nothing thence. All that I used was according 
to the copy of the late Reverend Bishop of Winchester, Bp. 
Andrews, which I have by me to be seen u , and which himself 
used all his time \ 

314 Then from my chapel, he went to my study. 1. And II. 
there the first charge was, that I had a Bible with the five 
wounds of Christ fair upon the cover of it/ This was 
curiously wrought in needlework. The Bible was so sent me 
by a lady, and she a Protestant ; I was loth to deface the 
work; but the Bible I kept in my study from any man s 
hand or eye, that might take offence at it. "Mr. Brown 
touched upon this, and my answer was the same, saving that 
I mentioned not the lady 2 . 2. Secondly, that I had in 
my study a Missal, and divers other books belonging to the 
Roman Liturgy. My Lords, tis true, I had many ; but 
I had more of the Greek Liturgies than the Roman. And 
I had as many of both as I could get. And I would know, 
how we shall answer their errors, if we may not have their 
books? I had Liturgies, all I could get, both ancient and 
modern. I had also the Alcoran in divers copies. If this be 
an argument, why do they not accuse me to be a Turk ? 
3. Thirdly, to this charge was added my Private Prayer- 
book, which Mr. Pryn had taken from me in his search. 
Where first I observed, That the secrets between God and 
my soul, were brought to be divulged in open court. " Nihil 
gravius dicam. But see whether it can be paralleled in 
Heathenism." But what Popery was found in these (163) 
prayers ? 1. Why, first they said, ( my prayers were in 
canonical hours, hora sexta, et hora nona } fyc. I enjoined 
myself several hours of prayer ; that, I hope, is no sin. And 

1 [ and which . . , time. in margin.] 

2 [ Mr. Brown . . . lady. on opposite page.] 

u [See Bp. Andrewes s Form for Consecrating Church Plate, in his Minor 
Works, p. 159. Oxf. 1853.] 


Die if some of them were Church hours, that s no sin neither : 

Seven times a day will I praise thee V was the Prophet 
David s, long before any canonical hours. And among 
Christians they were in use before Popery got any head. 
God grant this may be my greatest sin l . 2. Secondly, ( the 
prayer which I made at the consecration of the chapel at 
Hammersmith^/ I desired that might be read, or any other. 
No offence found. 3. Thirdly, the word ( prostratus, in my 
Private Devotions, before I came to the Eucharist z . 9 If I did 
so to God, what s that to any man ? But, I pray, in all this 
curious search, (" and Mr. Pryn here, and all along, spared no 
pains,") why were no 2 prayers to the B. Virgin and the 
Saints found, if I were so swallowed up in Popery ? 
III. From my study, he went on to my gallery. The Sergeant 
would find out Popery ere he had done. Thence I was 
charged with three pictures. 1. The first of them was a fair 
picture of the four Fathers of the Western Church : S. Am 
brose, S. Jerom, S. Augustine, and S. Gregory/ It was as 
lawful to have this picture as the picture of any other men. 
Yea; but there was a dove pictured over them, and that 
stood for the Holy Ghost. That s more than any witness 
did, or durst depose. 2. The second was, e the Ecce Homo, as 
Pilate brought Christ forth, and showed Him to the Jews/ 
This picture is common, and I yet know no hurt of it, so it 
be not worshipped. And that I detest as much as any man, 
and have written as much against it as any Protestant hath : 
and it was then read in part a . And for both these pictures 
I answered farther out of Calvin b ; That it is lawful to make, 
and have the picture of any things quorum sint capaces 
oculi, which may be seen. Now the dove was visible and 
seen. S. John i. c That s for the first picture. And for the 
second, the Ecce Homo ; why did Pilate say Ecce, but that the 315 
Jews might and did see Him? S. Joh. xix. d So both pic 
tures lawful by the rule laid down by Calvin. 

God grant . . . sin. in margin.] 
why were no originally were no ] 

* Psal. cxix. [164.] b Lib. i. Inst. cap. 11. 12. [Op., 

y [See Works, vol. iii. p. 96.] torn. ix. p. 22.] 

z [Ibid. p. 74.] c g. John i. 32, 33. 

8 [Cont. Fisher, 33. p. 279. [Edit. d S. John xix. 5. 
1639; pp. 310312, Oxf. 1849.] 


<f Mr. Brown charged against both these pictures very Die 
warmly. And when I had answered as before, in his reply Decimo - 
he fell upon my answer ; and said it was in the Homilies (but 
either he quoted not the place, or I else slipped it), That 
every picture of Christ was a lie, becaus.e whole Christ cannot 
be pictured/ But by this argument it is unlawful to picture 
any man : for the whole man cannot be pictured. Who ever 
drew a picture of the soul? And yet who so simple as to 
say the picture of a man is a lie ? Besides, the Ecce Homo is 
a picture of the humanity of Christ only, which may as law 
fully be drawn as any other man. And it may be I may 
give further answer, when I see the place in the Homilies." 

3. The third picture found in my gallery, I marvel why 
it was produced. For it relates to that of our Saviour, 
S. John x., where He says, c that the shepherd enters into 
the sheepfold by the door, but they which climb up to enter 
another way, are thieves and robbers e . And in that picture 
the Pope and the friars are climbing up to get in at the 
windows. So tis as directly against Popery as can be. 
Besides, it was witnessed before the Lords by Mr. Walter 
Dobson, an ancient servant, both to Archbishop Bancroft and 
Abbot, that both the Ecce Homo and this picture were in the 
gallery when he came first to Lambeth-House, which was 
about forty years since. So it was not brought thither by 
me to countenance Popery f . And I hope your Lps. do not 
think me such a fool, if I had an intention, to alter religion, 
I would hang the profession of it openly in my gallery, 
thereby to bring present danger upon myself, and destroy 
the work which themselves say I intended cunningly. And 
if there be any error in having and keeping such pictures, 
yet that is no sufficient proof, that I had any intention to 
alter the religion established, which I desire may be taken 
notice of once for all. 

From my gallery the Sergeant crossed the water to White- IV. 
Hall (and sure in haste, for at that time he took no leave of 

e S. John x. 1, 2. as were the windows of the chapel, 

f All these pictures were placed in and the chapel itself converted to a 

the gallery by Cardinal Pole, when he dancing-room by them, having first 

built it, and continue there still, beat down Archbishop Parker s tomb 

having not been defaced by the godly in the middle of it, and cast his bones 

party in the time of the Rebellion, upon the dunghill. H. W. 


Die Captain Guest e, or his wife, before he left Lambeth). At 

Decimo. the Court he met gir Henr Mildmay h . This (164) knight 

being produced by him against me, says, that in my time bow 
ings were constantly used in the chapel there/ 1. But first, 
Dr. Featly told your Lps., there was nothing in my chapel 
but as it was in use at White-Hall. So all the Popery I could 
bring, was there before. And secondly, If bowing to God in 
His own house be not amiss, (as how it should I yet know 
not,) then there can be no fault in the constant doing of it : 
Quod semel fecisse bonum est, non potest malum esse si fre 
quenter fiat i . So St. Jerome teaches. Thirdly, I am very 
sorry, that any reverence to God, in His house, and in the 
time of His worship, should be thought too much. I am 
sure the Homilies, so often pressed against me, cry out 
against the neglect of reverence in the church k . This 
passage was read, and by this it seems, the devil s cunning 
was, so soon as he saw superstition thrust out of this Church, 316 
to bring irreverence and profaneness in. " Here Mr. Browne 
having pressed this charge, replies upon me in his last, 
that I would admit no mean, but either there must be 
superstition or profaneness ; whereas my words can infer no 
such thing. I said this was the devil s practice. I would 
have brought in the mean between them, and preserved it 
too, by God s blessing, had I been let alone." 

2. Sir Henry says next, ( that he knew of no bowings in 
that chapel befpre my time, but by the Eight Honourable 
the Knights of the Garter at their solemnity/ No time else ? 
Did he never see the King his M. offer before my time ? Or 
did he ever see him offer, or the Ld. Chamberlain attend 
him there, without bowing and kneeling too ? And for the 
Knights of the Garter, if they might do it without supersti 
tion, I hope I and other men might do so too. Especially 
since they were ordered by Hen. V. to do it with great 
reverence, ad modum sacerdotum *. Which proves the anti 
quity of this ceremony in England. 

* [Guest was then in charge of [Sect. 10. Op., torn. ii. col. 396 D.] 
Lambeth. See Diary, V M ay 9, 1643, k Tom. ii. Horn. i. Princip. [i.e. 

Works, vol. iii. p. 251.] The Homily of the Right Use of the 

h [See Sir Henry Mildmay s evi- Church.] 

dence at. length in Prynne s Cant. J In Registro Windesoriensi, p. 65. 
Doom, p. 67.] Tis commonly called the Black Book. 

1 S. Hieron. adversus Vigilantium. [The origin of this order of Henry V. 


3. He further says, there was a fair crucifix in a piece of Die 
hangings hung up behind the altar, which he thinks, was not Decimo - 
used before my time/ But that he thinks so is no proof. 
4. He says, this fair piece was hanged up in the Passion 
Week, as they call it/ As they call it? Which they? Will 
he shut out himself from the Passion Week ? All Christians 
have called it so for above a thousand years together m ; and 
is that become an innovation too ? As they call it. 5. He 
says, The hanging up of this piece was a great scandal to 
men but indifferently affected to religion. Here I humbly 
crave leave to observe some few particulars : 1. First, that 
here s no proof so much as offered, that the piece was hung 
up by me or my command. 2. Secondly, that this gentleman 
came often to me to Lambeth, and professed much love to 
me, yet was never the man that told me his conscience, or 
any man s else, was troubled at it ; which had he done, that 
should have been a scandal to no man. 3. Thirdly, that if 
this were scandalous to any, it must be offensive in regard of 
the workmanship ; or quatenus tale, as it was a crucifix. Not 
in regard of the work certainly, for that was very exact. And 
then if it were because it was a crucifix, why did not the old 
one offend Sir Henry s conscience as much as the new? For 
the piece of hangings which hung constantly all the year at 
the back of the altar, thirty years together upon my own 
knowledge, and somewhat above, long before, (as I offered 
proof by the vestry men,) and so all the time of Sir Henry s 
being in court, had * a crucifix wrought in it, and yet his 
conscience never troubled at it. 4. Fourthly, that he could 
not possibly think that I intended any Popery in it, con 
sidering how hateful he knew me to be at Rome, beyond any 
my predecessors since the Reformation. For so he protested 
at his return from thence to myself. And I humbly desire a 
1 [ and so . . . had in margin. Originally there was ] 

is given by the Archbishop in his Queen Mary. It appears, also, from the 

speech at the censure of Bastwick, account of the ceremonies observed at 

p. 79 in marg. (Works, vol. vi.) the Installation of the Duke of Cum- 

Heylin mentions (Hist, of the Ke- berland, in 1730, that these ceremo- 

formation, pp. 123, 124) that Queen nies were still observed at that time. 

Elizabeth retained the ancient cere- See Hierurg. Angl. pp. 51, 6062.] 

monies observed by the Knights of m Et observabatur ab omnibus. Ve- 

the Garter in their adoration towards delius (and he no way superstitious) 

the altar, which were abolished by in Igna. Epistola ad Philip. Exercit. 

King Edward VI., and revived by [] xvi. cap. 3. [p. 64. Genev. 1623.] 


Die salvo, that I may have him called to witness it. Which was 

Decimo - granted. 

When they had charged me thus far, there came up a 
message from the House of Commons. I was commanded 
to withdraw. But that business requiring more haste, I was 
dismissed with a command to attend again on Wednesday, 

Mail 22. May 22. But then I was put off again to Monday, May 27. 

Man 27. And after much pressing for some (165) maintenance, con 
sidering how oft I was made attend, and with no small 

Mail 25. expense, on May 25, I had an order from the Committee of 

Sequestrations, to have two hundred pound allowed me out 317 
of my own now sequestered estate. It was a month before 
I could receive this. And this was all that ever was yet 
allowed me, since the sequestration of my estate, being then 
of above two years continuance. 




Tins day Mr. Sergeant Wilde followed the charge upon I. 
me. And went back again to my chapel windows at Lam- Mail 27, 
beth. Three witnesses against them. 1. The first was one Monday 
Pember, a glazier. He says, there was in one of the glass Die < 
windows on the north side, the picture of an old man with a 
glory, which he thinks was of God the Father/ But his 
thinking so is no proof. Nor doth he express in which of 
the north windows he saw it. And for the glory, that is 
usual about the head of every saint. 2. And Mr. Brown, 
who was the second witness, and was trusted by me for all 
the work of the windows, both at Lambeth and l Croydon, 
says expressly upon his oath, that there was no picture of 
God the Father in the windows at Lambeth. But he says, 
he found a picture of God the Father in a window at 
Croydon, and Archbp. Cranmer s arms under it, and that 
he pulled it down/ So it appears this picture was there 
before my time ; and continued there in so zealous an Arch 
bishop s time as Cranmer a was well known to be, and it was 
pulled down in my time. Neither did I know till now, that 
ever such a picture was there ; and the witness deposes, he 
never made me acquainted with it/ 3. The third witness was 
Mr. Pryn. He says, he had taken a survey of the windows 
at Lambeth/ And I doubt not his diligence. He repeated 
the story in each window. I have told this before, and shall 
not repeat it b . He says, the pictures of these stories are in 
the Mass-book/ If it be so, yet they were not taken thence 
by me. Archbishop Morton c did that work, as appears by 
his device in the windows. He says, f the story of the day 
1 [ at Lambeth and originally at home and ] 

a [Abp. of Cant. 15331555.] e [Abp. of Cant. 14861500.] 

> [See above, p. 199.] 



Die of judgment was in a window in atrio, that must not come 

mo> into the chapel/ Good Ld., whither will malice carry a man? 
The story opposite is of the creation ; and what, must not 
that come into the chapel neither? The chapel is divided 
into an inner and outer chapel. In this outward the two 
windows mentioned are. And the partition or screen of the 
chapel, which makes it two, was just in the same place where 
now it stands, from the very building of the chapel, for 
aught can be proved to the contrary. So neither I nor any 
man else did shut out l the day of judgment. He says, 
I had read the Mass-book diligently/ How else should 
I be able really to confute what is amiss in it ? He says, 
I had also a book of pictures concerning the life of Christ 
in my study V And it was fit for me to have it. For some 318 
things are to be seen in their pictures for the people, which 
their writings do not, perhaps dare not, avow 2 . 
II. The second charge of this day, was about the admini 
stration of the Sacrament in my chapel. The witnesses two. 
1. The first was Dr. Hay wood 6 , who had been my chaplain 
in the house. They had got from others the ceremonies 
there used; and then brought him upon oath. He confessed 
he administered in a cope/ And the Canon warranted it f . 
He confesses, (as it was urged,) f that he fetched the elements 
from the credential (a little side-table as they called it), and 
set them reverently upon the communion-table/ Where s 
the offence ? For first, the communion-table was little, and 
there was hardly room for the elements to stand con 
veniently there, while the service was in administration. 
And secondly, I did not this without example ; for both 
Bishop Andrews and some other bishops used it so all their 
time, and no exception taken e. The second witness was 
Rob. Cornwall h , one of my menial servants. A very forward 

1 [ neither I ... out in margin. Originally, the day of judgment I did 
not shut out, nor any man else. ] 2 [ avow. orig. written deny. ] 

d [The title of the book as given given an account of his superstitious 

by Prynne (Cant. Doom, p. 66) was, and idolatrous manner of administer- 

Imagines Vitse, Passionis et Mortis ing the Lord s Supper. (Wood, Ath. 

D. N. Jesu Christ!. By Boetius a Ox. iii. 634,635.)] 
Bolswert, 1623.] { Can. Eccles. Ang. 24. 

e [William Heywood, Rector of S. [On the use of the Credence-table, 

Giles-in-the-Fields, and Preb. of West- see Hickes s Pref. Discourse, sect. v. 

minster. Articles were exhibited pp. 128 130.] 
against him in 1641, in which is h [Prynne calls him Cordwell. ] 


witness he showed himself. But said no more than is said Die 
and answered before. Both of them confessing that I was 
sometimes present. 

The third charge was about the ceremonies at the coro- III. 
nation of his Majesty. 1. And first out of my Diary, Feb. 2, 
1625, tis urged, that I carried back the regalia, offered 
them on the altar, and then laid them up in their place of 
safety 1 . I bare the place at the coronation of the (166) 
Dean of Westminster J, and I was to look to all those things, 
and their safe return into custody, by the place I then 
executed. And the offering of them could be no offence. 
For the King himself offers upon solemn days. And the 
right honourable the Knights of the Garter offer at their 
solemnity. And the offertory is established by law in the 
Common Prayer-book of this Church. And the preben 
daries assured me it was the custom for the Dean so to do. 
2. Secondly, they charged a marginal note in the book upon 
me : That the unction was in forma crucis. That note 
doth not say that it ought so to be done ; but it only relates 
the practice, what was done. And if any fault were in 
anointing the King in that form, it was my predecessor s 
fault, not mine, for he so anointed him. 3. They say, there 
was a crucifix among the regalia, and that it stood upon the 
altar at the coronation, and that I did not except against 
it V My predecessor executed at that time. And I believe 
would have excepted against the crucifix had it stood there. 
But I remember not any there. Yet if there were, if my 
predecessor approved the standing of it, or were content to 
connive at it, it would have been made but a scorn had 
I quarrelled it. 4. They say, one of the prayers was taken 
out of the Pontifical/ And I say, if it were, it was not taken 
thence by me. And the prayers are the same that were used 
at King James his coronation. And so the prayer be good 
(and here s no word in it, that is excepted against), tis no 
matter whence tis taken. 

5. Then leaving the ceremonies, he charged me with two 

1 [See Works, vol. iii. p. 181.] Life of Laud, p. 144. [This crucifix 

J [Ibid. p. 178, note .] is mentioned among the Regalia, in 

k Heylin affirmeth, that the old an Indenture between Bp. Andrewes 

crucifix, being found among the re- and Dr. Neile, Dean of Westminster. 

galia, was then placed upon the altar. MSS. Ashmole, Numb. 837. Art. xlii.] 



Die alterations in the body of the King s oath. One added, 

mo namely these words, agreeable to the King s prerogative. 
The other omitted, namely these words, qua populus elege- 
rit, which the people have chosen, or shall choose. For this 
latter, the clause omitted, that suddenly vanished. For it 319 
was omitted in the oath of King James, as is confessed by 
themselves in the printed votes of this present Parliament ] . 
But the other highly insisted on, as taking off the total 
assurance which the subjects have by the oath of their 
prince for the performance of his laws. First, I humbly 
conceive this clause takes off none of the people s assurance ; 
none at all l . For the King s just and legal prerogative, and 
the subject s assurance for liberty and property, may stand 
well together, and have so stood for hundreds of years. 
Secondly, that alteration, whatever it be, was not made by 
me ; nor is there any interlining or alteration so much as of 
a letter found in that book. Thirdly, if anything be amiss 
therein, my predecessor gave that oath to the King, and 
not I. I was merely ministerial, both in the preparation, 
and at the coronation itself, supplying the place of the Dean 
of Westminster. 

After this day s work was ended, it instantly spread all 
over the city, that I had altered the King s oath at his coro 
nation, and from thence into all parts of the kingdom ; as if 
all must be true which was said at the bar against me, what 
answer soever I made. The people and some of the Synod 
now crying out, that this one thing was enough to take away 
my life. And though this was all that was charged this day 
concerning this oath, yet seeing how this fire took, I thought 
fit, the next day that I came to the bar, to desire that the 
books of the coronation of former kings, especially those of 
Queen Elizabeth and King James, might be seen and com 
pared, and the copies brought into the court, both from the 
Exchequer, and such as were in my study at Lambeth : and 
a fuller inquisition made into the business : in regard I was 
as innocent from this crime, as when my mother bare me 
into the world. A salvo was entered for me upon this. And 
1 [The words, First, because, here followed in MS., but are erased.] 

1 [Husband s Exact Collection, &c.] Lords and Commons assembled in 
p. 706. [Lond. 1643. The document Parliament, in reply to his Majesty s 
referred to, is the Declaration of the answer to the Remonstrance.] 


every day that I after came to the bar, I called upon this Die 
business. But somewhat or other was still pretended by U 
them which managed the evidence, that I could not get the 
books to be brought forth, nor anything to be done, till 
almost the last day of my hearing. Then no books could be 
found in the Exchequer, nor in my study, but only that of 
King James ; whereas, when the keys were taken from me, 
there were divers books there, as is confessed in the printed 
votes of this Parliament m : and one of them with a watchet 
satin cover, now missing. And whether this of King James 
(had not my secretary, who knew (167) the book, seen it 
drop out of Mr. Pryn s bag) would not have been concealed 
too, I cannot tell. At last, the book of King James his 
coronation, and the other urged against me concerning King 
Charles, were seen and compared openly in the Lds/ House, 
and found to be the same oath in both, and no interlining or 
alteration in the book charged against me. 

t( This business was left by the Sergeant to Mr. Maynard, 
who made the most that could be out of my Diary against 
me. And so did Mr. Brown, when he came to give the sum 
of the charge against me, both before the Lds., and after in 
the House of Commons. And therefore, for the avoiding of 
all tedious repetition; and for that the arguments which 
both used, are the same ; and because I hold it not fit to 
break a charge of this moment into divers pieces, or put 
320 them in different places, I will here set down the whole 
business together, and the answer which I then gave. 

" Mr. Brown, in the sum of the charge against me in 
the Commons-house, when he came to this article, said, he 
was now come to the business so much expected/ And I 
humbly besought that honourable House, if it were a matter 
of so great expectation, it might be of as great attention too, 
while I should follow that worthy gentleman, step after step, 
and answer as I went 

" 1. And first, he went about to prove out of my Diary, 
that this addition ( of the King s prerogative ) to the oath, 
was made by me l . Thus he says, that Decemb. 31, 1625, 
I went to Hampton-Court V That s true. He says, that 
1 [The words, out of my Diary. were originally at the end of the sentence.] 
m P. 706. n [See Works, vol. iii. p. 176.] 


Die there, Januar. 1, I understood I was named with other Bps., 

mo to meet and consider of the ceremonies about the corona 
tion ; and that, Januar. 4, we did meet at White-Hall 
accordingly?; and that, Januar. 6, we gave his Majesty an 
answer V Not I (as twas charged), but we, gave his Majesty 
answer. So if the oath had been changed by me, it must 
have been known to the committee, and broken forth to 
my ruin long since. Then he says, that Januar. 16, I was 
appointed to serve at the coronation, in the room of the 
Dean of Westminster 1 / That s no crime. And tis added 
in the Diary, that this charge was delivered unto me by my 
predecessor. So he knew that this service to attend at the 
coronation was imposed upon me. He says next, that 
Januar. 18, the Duke of Buckingham had me to the King, 
to show his Majesty the notes we had agreed on, if nothing 
offended him s . These were only notes of the ceremonies. 
And the other bishops sent me, being puny, to give the 
account. Then he says, Januar. 23, it is in my Diary, 
Librum habui paratum, I had a book ready. And it was 
time, after such meetings; and the coronation being to 
follow Feb. 2, and I designed to assist and attend that 
service, that I should have a book ready *. The ceremonies 
were too long and various to carry them in memory. And 
whereas tis urged, that I prepared and altered this book ; 
the words in my Diary are only, paratum habui, I had the 
book ready for my own use in that service. Nor can para 
tum habui, signify preparing or altering the book. And 
thirdly, tis added there, that the book which I had ready in 
my hands, did agree per omnia cum libro regali : and if it 
did agree in all things with the King s recorded book then 
brought out of the Exchequer, where then is the alteration 
so laboriously sought to be fastened on me ? I humbly 
beseech you to mark this. 

"Yet out of these premises put together, Mr. Brown s 
inference was, that I made this alteration of the oath. But 
surely these premises, neither single nor together, can pro 
duce any such conclusion; but rather the contrary. Beside, 
inference upon evidence is not evidence, unless it be abso- 

[See Works, vol. iii. p. 176.1 r [Ibid.] 

* [Ibid. p. 177.] [Ibid. p. 179.] 

1 [Ibid. p. 178.] [Ibid.] 


lutely necessary; which all men see that here it is not. But Die 
1 pray observe 1 . Why was such a sudden stay made at 
Januar. 23 ? whereas it appears in my Diary at Januar. 31, 
that the Bps. were not alone trusted with this coronation 
business ; sed alii procereSj but other great and noble men 
also 11 / And they did meet that Januar. 31, and sat in 
Council about it. So the Bishops meetings were but prepa- 
321 ratory to ease the Lords, most of the ceremonies being in 
the church-way. And then can any man think, that these 
great Lords, when they came to review all that was done, 
would let the oath be altered by me or any other, so mate 
rially, and not check at it? (168) ; Tis impossible. 

" 2. Secondly, this gentleman went on to charge this 
addition upon me, thus, There were found in my study at 
Lambeth two books of King James his coronation; one of 
them had this clause or addition in it, and the other had it 
not 2 ; and we cannot tell by which he was crowned; there 
fore, it must needs be some wilful error in me, to make 
choice of that book which had this addition in it ; or some 
great mistake/ First, if it were a mistake only, then it is no 
crime. And wilful error it could not be ; for, being named 
one of them that were to consider of the ceremonies, I went 
to my predecessor, and desired a book, to see by it what was 
formerly done. He delivered to me this now in question. 
I knew not whether he had more or no, nor did I know that 
any one of them differed from other. Therefore, no wilful 
error. For I had no choice to make of this book 3 which had 
the addition, before that which had it not, but thankfully 
took that which he gave me. But, secondly, if one book of 
K. James his coronation, in which I could have no hand, had 
this addition in it, (as is confessed,) then was not this a new 
addition of my making. And, thirdly, it may easily be seen 
that K. James was crowned by the book which hath this 
addition in it, this being in a fair carnation satin cover, the 
other in paper without a cover, and unfit for a king s hand, 
especially in such a great and public solemnity. 

" 3. In the third place he said, there were in this book 

But I pray observe. in margin. Originally, Besides. ] 
and . . . not; in margin.] 3 [ book in margin.] 

u [See Works, vol. iii. p. 180.] 


We twenty alterations more, and all, or most, in my hand/ Be 

it so, (for I was never suffered to have the book to consider 
of,) they are confessed not to be material. The truth is, 
when we met in the committee, we were fain to mend many 
slips of the pen, to make sense in some places, and good 
English in other. And the book being trusted with me, 
I had reason to do it with my own hand, but openly at the 
committee all. Yet two things, as matters of some moment, 
Mr. Brown checked at. 

" 1. The one was, that confirm is changed into perform. 
If it be so, perform is the greater and more advantageous 
to the subject, because it includes execution, which the other 
word doth not. Nor doth this word hinder, but that the 
laws and liberties are the people s already/ For though they 
be their own, yet the King, by his place, may and ought to 
perform the keeping and maintaining of them. I say, s if it 
be so, for I was never suffered to have this book in my 
hands, thoroughly to peruse. Nor, under favour, do I be 
lieve this alteration is so made, as His urged. In the book 
which I have by me, and was transcribed from the other, it 
is confirm 1 . 

" 2. The other is, that the King is said to answer, I will, 
for / do. But when will he ? Why, all the days of his life ; 
which is much more than I do for the present. So, if this 
change be made, tis still for the people s advantage. And 
there also tis, I do grant 2 . And yet again I say f if, for 
the reason before given. Besides, in all the Latin copies, 
there is a latitude left for them that are trusted, to add to 
those interrogatories which are then put to the King any 
other that is just : in these words, Adjiciantur prcedictis inter- 322 
rogationibus qua justa fuerint. And such are these two 
mentioned, if they were made. 

" 4. Mr. Brown s fourth and last objection was, that I 
made this alteration of the oath, because it agrees, as he 
said, with my judgment ; for that in a paper of Bishop 
Harsnett s, there is a marginal note in my hand, that salvo 
jure corona is understood in the oaths of a king. But, first, 

1 [ In the . . . confirm. in margin.] 

2 [ And . . . grant. in margin. By the side, in the text, are three lines 
" erased. 1 


there s a great deal of difference between jus Regis et praroga- Die 
tiva, between the right and inheritance of the King, and his 
prerogative, though never so legal. And with submission, arid 
until I shall be convinced herein, I must believe that no King 
can swear himself out of his native right. Secondly, if this 
were, and still be, an error in my judgment, that s no argument 
at all to prove malice in my will : that, because that is my 
judgment for jus Regis, therefore I must thrust praroga- 
tivam Regis, which (169) is not my judgment, into a public 
oath which I had no power to alter. These were all the 
proofs which Mr. Maynard at first, and Mr. Brown at last, 
brought against me in this particular ; and they are all but 
conjectural, and the conjectures weak. But that I did not 
alter this oath by adding the prerogative, the proofs I shall 
bring are pregnant, and some of them necessary. They are 
these : 

" 1 . My predecessor was one of the grand committee for 
these ceremonies. That was proved by his servants to the 
Lords. Now, his known love to the public was such as that 
he would never have suffered me, or any other, to make such 
an alteration ; nor would he have concealed such a crime in 
me, loving me so well as he did. 

" 2. Secondly, tis notoriously known, that he crowned 
the King, and administered the oath, (which was avowed also 
before the Lords by his ancient servants.) And it cannot be 
rationally conceived he would ever have administered such an 
altered oath to his Majesty. 

"3. Thirdly, tis expressed in my Diary, at Januar. 31, 
1625, (and that must be good evidence for me, having been 
so often produced against me,) that divers great Lords were 
in this committee for the ceremonies, and did that day sit in 
council upon them x . And can it be thought they would not 
so much as compare the books? or that, comparing of them, 
they would endure an oath with such an alteration to be 
tendered to the King? Especially, since tis before con 
fessed y, that one copy of King James his coronation had this 
alteration in it, and the other had it not. 

" 4. Fourthly, tis expressed in my Diary, and made use of 

against me, at Januar. 23, 1625, that this book urged against 

* [See Works, vol. iii. p. 180.] y P. 168 [of original MS. See above, p. 215.] 


Die me did agree per omnia cum libro regali z , in all things with 

Undecimo. the King , g book brought out of the Exchequer. And if the 

book that I then had, and is now insisted upon, did agree 
with that book which came out of the Exchequer, and that in 
all things, how is it possible I should make this alteration ? 

" 5. Fifthly, with much labour I got the books to be 
compared in the Lords House; that of K. James his coro 
nation, and this of K. Charles ; and they were found to agree 323 
in all things to a syllable. Therefore, tis impossible this 
should be added by me. And this, I conceive, cuts off all 
conjectural proofs to the contrary. 

" 6. Lastly, in the printed book of the votes of this pre 
sent Parliament a , it is acknowledged that the oath given to 
King James and K. Charles was the same. , The same : 
therefore unaltered. And this passage of that book I then 
showed the Lords in my defence. To this Mr. Maynard then 
replied, that the votes there mentioned were upon the word 
elegerit, and the doubt whether it should be hath chosen or 
shall choose. I might not then answer to the reply, but the 
answer is plain ; for, be the occasion which led on the votes 
what it will, as long as the oath is acknowledged the same, 
tis manifest it could not be altered by me. And I doubt not 
but these reasons will give this honourable House satisfaction, 
that I added not this particular of the prerogative to the oath. 

" Mr. Brown, in his last reply, passed over the other argu 
ments, I know not how. But against this he took exception. 
He brought the book with him, and read the passage ; and 
said (as far as I remember) that the votes had relation to 
the word choose, and not to this alteration which is in 
effect the same which Mr. Maynard urged before. I might 
not reply, by the course of the court ; but I have again con 
sidered of that passage, and find it plain. Thus, first they 
say b , They have considered of all the alterations in the form 
of this oath which they can find ; ; therefore, of this alteration 
also, if any such were : then they say, Excepting that oath 
which was taken by his Majesty, and his father, K. James : 
there it is confessed that the oath taken by them was one 
and the same, called there that oath which was taken by 

z [See Works, vol. iii. p. 179.1 b P. 706. 

a [Husband s Exact Collection,] p. 706. 


both. Where falls the exception then ? for tis said, Ex- Die 
cepting that oath/ &c. Why, it follows, Excepting that Undecimo - 
the word choose is wholly left out, as well hath chosen as will 
choose. Which is a most manifest and evident confession 
that the oath of King James and Ki. Charles was the same 
in all (170) things, to the very leaving out of the word 
choose. Therefore, it was tl\e same oath all along ; no dif 
ference at all. For, Exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis c ; 
and here s no exception at all of this clause of the preroga 
tive. Therefore, the oath of both the Kings was the same in 
that, or else the votes would have been sure to mention it. 
Where it may be observed too, that Sergeant Wilde, though 
he knew these votes, and was present both at the debate and 
the voting, and so must know that the word choose was 
omitted in both the oaths, yet at the first he charged it 
eagerly upon me, that I had left this clause of choosing out 
of King Ch. his oath, and added the other. God forgive 
him. But the world may see by this, and some other pas 
sages, with what art my life was sought for. 

" And yet, before I quite leave this oath, I may say tis 
not altogether improbable that this clause, ( and agreeing to 
the prerogative of the Kings thereof/ was added to the oath 
in Edw. VI. or Queen Elizab. s time : and hath no relation 
324 at all to the laws of this kingdom/ absolutely mentioned 
before in the beginning of this oath ; but only to the words, 
the profession of the Gospel established in this kingdom : 
and then immediately follows, and agreeing to the preroga 
tive of the Kings thereof; by which the King swears to main 
tain his prerogative, according to God s law, and the Gospel 
established, against all foreign claims and jurisdictions what 
soever. And if this be the meaning, he that made the 
alteration, whoever it were, (for I did it not,) deserves thanks 
for it, and not the reward of a traitor." 

Now, to return to the day. The fourth charge went on IV. 
with the ceremonies still. But Mr. Sergeant was very 
nimble ; for he leaped from the coronation at Westminster 
to see what I did at Oxford. 1. There the first witness is 
Sir Nath. Brent d ; and he says, The standing of the com- 

c [See the Gloss in Clement, lib. v. d [See Brent s evidence at large, 
tit. xi. cap. 1. Cum autem.] Prynne, Cant. Doom, p. 71.] 


Die munion-table at S. Mary s was altered/ I have answered to 

* this situation of the communion-table already. And if it be 
lawful in one place, tis in another. For the chapel of 
Magdalen College 6 , and Christ Church quire f , he confesses 
he knows of no direction given by me to either : nor doth he 
know whether I reproved the things there done or no. So 
all this is no evidence. For the picture of the B. Virgin 
at S. Mary s door, as I knew nothing of it till it was done, 
so never did I hear any abuse or dislike of it after it was 
done?. And here Sir Nathaniel confesses, too, that he knows 
not of any adoration of it, as men passed the streets or 
otherwise. When this witness came not home, they urged 
the statute of Merton College 11 , or 1 the University 1 , where, 
(if I took my notes right,) they say, I enjoined debit am reve- 
rentiam. And as I know no fault in that injunction, or 
statute, so neither do I know what due bodily reverence can 
be given to God in his Church, without some bowing or 

2. The second witness was Mr. Corbett k . He says, that 
when decent reverence was required by my visitors in one of 
my articles, he gave reasons against it, but Sir Jo. Lambe 
urged it still. First, my Lords, if Mr. Corbett s reasons 
were sufficient, Sir John Lambe was to blame in that ; but 
Sir Jo. Lambe must answer it, and not I. Secondly, it may 
be observed, that this man, by his own confession, gave 
reasons (such as they were) against due reverence to God in 
his own house. He says, that Dr. Frewen 1 told him from 
me, that I wished he should do as others did at St. Mary s, 
or let another execute his place as Proctor. This is but 
a hearsay from Dr. Frewen, who being at Oxford, I cannot 
produce him. And if I had sent such a message, I know no 
crime in it. He says, that after this, he desired he might 
enjoy in this particular the liberty which the King and the 

7 [ of Merton College, or in margin.] 

e [See Wood s History, p. 329.] l [See Corp. Stat. tit. vii. sect. i. 11.] 

f [Ibid. p. 462.] k [See Corbet s evidence in full, 

* [The porch of S. Mary s Church Prynne s Cant. Doom, p. 71.] 

was rebuilt by Dr. Morgan Owen, l [President of Magd. Coll. He 

Bishop of Llandaff. See History of was Vice-Chancellor at the time.] 

Chancellorship, Works, vol. v. p. 174.] m [See History of Chancellorship, 

h 1. [See Works, vol. v. p. 547.] Works, vol. v. p. 204.] 


Church of England gave him n . He did so : and from that Die 
day he heard no more of it, but enjoyed the liberty which he Undecimo - 
asked. He says, Mr. Channell desired the same liberty, 
as well (171) as he/ And Mr. Channell had it granted, as 
well as he. He confesses ingenuously, that the bowing 
required was only toward/ not to the altar. And, To the 
picture at St. Mary s door/ he says, he never heard of any 
reverence done to it ; and doth f believe that all that was 
325 done at Christ Church was since my time p / But it must be 
his knowledge, not his belief, that must make an evidence. 

3. The third witness, was one Mr. Bendye q . He says, 
There was a crucifix in Lincoln College Chapel since my 
time/ If there be, tis more than 1 know. My Ld. of York 
that now is, when he was Bp. of Lincoln, worthily bestowed 
much cost upon that chapel ; and if he did set up a crucifix, 
I think it was before I had aught to do there r . He says, 
there was bowing at the name of Jesus/ And God forbid 
but there should ; and the Canon s of the Church requires 
it. He says, there were Latin prayers in Lent, but he 
knows not who enjoined it/ And then he might have held 
his peace. But there were Latin sermons and prayers on 
Ash- Wednesday, when few came to church, but the Lent 
proceeders, who understood them*. And in divers colleges 
they have their morning prayers in Latin, and had so, long 
before I knew the University u . The last thing he says, was, 
that there were copes used in some colleges, and that a 
traveller should say, upon the sight of them, that he saw just 
such a thing upon the Pope s back/ This wise man might . 
have said as much of a gown : He saw a gown on the Pope s 
back ; therefore a Protestant may not wear one : or, entering 
into S. Paul s, he may cry, Down with it; for I saw the Pope 
in just such another church in Home. 

n [See Corbet s petition, ibid. p. built at the charge of Bp. Williams, 
205.] and consecrated by Bp. Corbet, in 

I. Cheynell. [See ibid, note n .] 1631.] 

P And the third witness agrees in s Can. 18. 

this. * [See Corp. Statut. tit. vi. sect. ii. 

1 [See Bendy s evidence on this 5.] 

C it in Prynne s Cant. Doom, p. 71. u [See Queen Elizabeth s Letters 

dy was employed together with Patent for translating the Prayer- 

Prynne to search the Archbishop s Book into Latin. Wilkins Cone, 

study. (Ibid. p. 66.)] torn. iv. p. 217.] 
r [Lincoln College Chapel was re- 


Die 4. Then was urged the conclusion of a letter of mine sent 

to that University. The words were to this effect, f I desire 
you to remember me a sinner, quoties coram altare Dei pro- 
cidatis V The charge lay upon the word procidatis ; which 
is no more, than that when they there fall on their knees, 
or prostrate * to prayer, they would remember me 2 . In 
which desire of mine, or expression of it, I can yet see no 
offence. No, nor in coram altare, their solemnest time of 
prayer being at the Communion. " Here Mr. Brown aggra 
vated the things done in that University : and fell upon the 
titles given me in some letters from thence; but because 
I have answered those titles already, I refer the reader 
thither w , and shall not make here any tedious repetition. 
Only this I shall add, that in the civil law tis frequent to 
be seen, that not bishops only one to another, but the great 
emperors of the world have commonly given that title of 
sanctitas vestra, to bishops of meaner place than myself ; to 
say no more. But here Mr. Brown, in his last reply, was 
pleased to say, ( This title was not given to any bishop of 
England V First, if I had my books about me, perhaps this 
might be refuted. Secondly, why should so grave a man as 
he so much disparage his own nation ? Is it impossible (be 
my unworthiness what it will) for an English Bp. to deserve 
as good a title as another ? Thirdly, be that as it may, if 
it were (as certainly it was) lawfully given to other Bps., 
though they not English, then is it neither blasphemy/ nor 
assumption of Papal power/ as was charged upon it V 
V. From Oxford Mr. Sergeant went to Cambridge. And 
I must be guilty, if aught were amiss there too. For this 
fifth charge were produced three witnesses : Mr. Wallis y, 
Mr. Greece z , and Mr. Seaman a . Their testimonies agreed 

1 [ or prostrate in margin.] 

2 [ they would remember me. on opposite page.] 

3 [ Here Mr. Brown . . . it. on opposite page.] 

v [See Abp. Laud s Letter to the z [Prynne terms him Nicholas le 

University, June 28, 1639. History Greise. See his evidence, ibid. p. 74. 

of Chancellorship, Works, vol. v. He was elected" Scholar of S. John s 

p. 227.] College, Oxford, in 1635. (Wilson, 

w [See above, pp. 157159.] Merch. Tailors School, p. 1195.)] 

1 [See above, p. 159.] a [Lazarus Seaman, afterwards 

y [See his evidence in Prynne s Master of Peter House. See his evi- 

Cant. Doom, p. 73.] dence, Prynne, Cant. Doom, p. 74.] 


very near ; so I will answer them together. First, they say, Die 
That at Peter-House there were copes and candlesticks, Undecimo 
326 and pictures in the glass windows ; and the like/ But these 
things I have often answered already, and shall not repeat. 
They say, the chief authors of these things were Dr. Wren b 
and Dr^ Cosens c . They are both living, why are they not 
called to answer their own acts ? For here s yet no show of 
proof to bring anything home to me. For no one of them 
says, that I gave direction for any of these. No, (says 
Mr. Sergeant,) but why did I tolerate them ? First, no 
man complained to me. Secondly, I was not Chancellor, 
and endured no small envy for any little thing that I had 
occasion to look upon in that place. And thirdly, this was 
not the least cause, why I followed my right for power to 
visit there d . And though that power was confirmed to me, 
yet the times have been such as that I did not then think fit 
to use it. It would have but heaped more envy on me, who 
bare too much already. "As for Mr. Greece, who hath 
laboured much against me in all this business, God forgive 
him ; and while he inherits his father s ill affections to me, 
God preserve him from his father s end e ." 

From Cambridge he went to the cathedrals, and first to VI. 
Canterbury. Here the charge is, bowing versus altare / the 
two witnesses, two prebendaries of that church, Dr. Jackson f , 
and Dr. Blechenden^. And first, Dr. Jackson says, the bow 
ing was versus altare : so not, to/ but toward the altar : 
and Dr. Blechenden says, it was the adoration of the high 
majesty of God, to whom, if no altar were there, I should 
bow. Dr. Jackson says, this bowing was to his grief? 
Strange ! I avow to your Lps. and the world, no man did 
so much approve all my proceedings in that church as he ; 
and for this particular, he never found the least fault with it 
(172) to me; and if he conceal his grief, I cannot ease it. 
He says, this bowing was not in use till within this six or 

b [Dr. Matthew Wren, admitted of Durham.] 

Master, July 26, 1625, afterwards sue- d [See above, p. 193, note k .] 

cessively Bishop of Hereford, Nor- e [See above, p. 48, note .] 

wich, and Ely.] f [Thomas Jackson, Prebendary of 

c [Dr. John Cosiu, admitted Master, the third Stall, Eector of Ivy Church, 

Feb. 8, 163$ ; ejected by the Parlia- and Minister of Wye in Kent; died 

mentary Commissioners, March 13, Nov. 1646.] 

164f ; Dean of Peterborough, Nov. 7, g [Thomas Blechinden, Prebendary 

1640 ; after the Restoration, Bishop of the second Stall.] 


Die seven years/ Sure the old man s memory fails him. For 

mo Dr. Blechenden says, the communion-table was railed about, 
and bowings before it, when he came first to be a member 
of that church ; and saith, upon his oath, that s above ten 
years ago. And that it was practised before their new 
statutes were made; and that in those statutes no punish 
ment is inflicted for the breach, or not performance of this 
reverence/ I could tell your Lps. how often Dr. Jackson 
hath shifted his opinions in religion, but that they tell me 
their witnesses must not be scandalized. As for the sta 
tutes, my secretary, Mr. Dell, who copied them out, testified 
here to the Lords> that I left out divers superstitions which 
were in the old book, and ordained many sermons in their 
rooms h . 

The next cathedral he instanced in was Winchester 1 . But 
there s nothing but the old objections, copes. And the 
wearing of them is warranted by the Canon k ; and reverence 
at coming in, and going out of the church/ And that, great 
kings have not (in better ages) thought much to do. And 
they did well to instance in the College of Winchester as 
well as the church; for tis confessed, the injunction sent 
thither requires, that the reverence used be such as is not 
dissonant from the Church of England V So, this may be a 
comment to the other injunctions 1 . " But for the copes in 
cathedrals, Mr. Brown in his last reply was not satisfied, 
For he said, ( the Canon mentioned but the wearing of one 
cope/ Be it so : but they must have that before they can 327 
wear it. And if the Canon enjoin the wearing of one, my 
injunction might require the providing and using of one. 
Besides, if there be no Popery, no introduction to supersti 
tion in the having or using of one ; then certainly, there can 
be none in the having of more for the same use : the super 
stition being lodged in the misuse, not in the number/ 
VII. From the cathedrals, Mr. Sergeant went to view some 

1 [The Archbishop originally meant here to go on to the seventh charge, 
without adding Mr. Brown s reply, for he begins the seventh charge, and 
erases it.] 

h [The Statutes of Canterbury Ca- cheater Cathedral, ibid. pp. 478, 479.] 

thedral are printed in full in vol. v. k Can. 24. 

pp. 506 seq.] ] [See the Injunctions to Win- 

[See the Injunctions to Win- Chester College, Works, vol. v. p. 49G.] 


parish churches. And first, tis charged, that in a parish Die 
church at Winchester, two seats were removed to make way Undecimo - 
for railing in of the communion-table 1 "/ But for aught 
I know, this might have been concealed. For it was liked 
so well, that they to whom the seats belonged, removed them 
at their own charges, that the other might be done. 

The next instance was in S. Gregory s Church, by S, Paul s". 
The charge was, the placing of the communion-table altar- 
wise/ To the charge itself answer is given before. The 
particulars which are new are these : The witness Mr. Wyan. 
He says, the order for such placing of the table was from 
the Dean and Chapter of S. Paul s. And S. Gregory s is 
in their peculiar jurisdiction. So the holy-table was there 
placed by the ordinary, not by me. He says next, That 
the parishioners appealed to the Arches, but received an 
order to command them and the cause to the Council-board : 
that it was a full Board when the cause was heard, and his 
Majesty present : and that there I maintained the Queen s 
injunction, about placing the communion-table . In all 
this, here s nothing charged upon me, but maintenance of 
the injunction ; and I had been much to blame if I should 
not have maintained it. He says, Sir Henr. Martin came 
and saw it, and said it would make a good Court cupboard. 
If Sir Henry did say so, the scorn ill became either his age 
or profession ; though a Court cupboard be somewhat a 
better phrase than a c dresser. God forgive them who have 
in print called it so. He says, That hereupon I did say, 
that he which spake that, had a stigmatical Puritan in his 
bosom. This man s memory serves him long for words : 
this was many years since; and if I did speak anything 
sounding this way, tis more like I should say schismatical, 
than stigmatical Puritan. But let him look to his oath ; 
and which word soever I used, if Sir Henry used the one, he 
might well hear the other. For a profane speech it was, and 
little becoming a Dean of the Arches. He says, that soon 
after this, Sir Henr. was put out of his place. Not very 

m [This was S. Maurice s Church. 88 ; and Kuslmorth s Collections, vol. 

See Prynne s Cant. Doom, p. 91.] ii. p. 207.] 

n [See the order for placing the Q. Eliz. Injunct. fine. [Wilkins 

communion-table in S. Gregory s Cone. torn. iv. p. 188.] 
Church, in Prynne s Cant. Doom, p. 

LAUD. VOL. iv. Q, 


Die soon after this ; (173) for I was at the time of this business 

mo (as far as I remember) Bishop of London, and had nothing 
to do with the disposing of his place. After, when I came 
to be Archbishop, I found his patent was void, neither could 
Sir Henry himself deny it. And being void, and in my gift, 
I gave it to another?. 

He says further, that it was urged that this way of placing 
the communion-table was against the word of God, in Bp. 
Jewel, and Mr. Fox his judgment; and that I replied, it 
were better they should not have these books in churches, 
than so to abuse them *. First, for aught I yet know (and 
in these straits of time the books I cannot come at), their 
judgment, rightly understood, is not so. Secondly, though 
these two were very worthy men in their time, yet every 
thing which they say is not by and by the doctrine of the 
Church of England/ And I may upon good reason depart 328 
from their judgment in some particulars, and yet not differ 
from the Church of England. As in this very particular, 
the injunction for placing of the table so, is the act of the 
Queen and the Church of England. And I conceive the 
Queen, then upon the act of reformation, would not have 
enjoined it, nor the Church obeyed it, had it been against 
the word of God. Thirdly, if I did say, that if they could 
make no better use of Jewel and the Book of Martyrs, it 
were better they had them not in the churches ; they gave 
too great occasion for the speech : for they had picked divers 
things out of those books which they could not master, and 
with them distempered both themselves and their neigh 
bours. And yet in hope other more modest men might 
make better use of them, I never gave counsel to have those 
books removed, (nor is that so much as charged,) but said 
only thus, That if no better use would be made of them, 
then that last remedy ; but never till then. " This last 
passage Mr. Brown insisted upon : The taking of good books 
from the people/ But as I have answered, there was no such 

P [Sir John Lambe was his sue- ferred to by them, were Jewell s Reply 

cessor.] to Harding, art. iii. div. 26, (Jewell s 

i [Jewell and Fox were both quoted Works, p. 145. Lond. 1609;) and art. 

by the Counsel for the Parishioners, xiii. div. 6, p. 362 ; and Fox s Acts 

against the Innovation. See Prynne s and Monuments, pp. 1211, 1212. 

Cant. Doom, p. 87. The passages re- Edit. 1612.] 


thing done, or intended ; only a word spoken to make busy Die 

men see how they abused themselves and the Church, by Undecimo - 

misunderstanding and misapplying that which was written 

for the good of both." Lastly, It was urged/ he said, that 

the communion-table must stand altar-wise, that strangers 

which come and look into these churches, might not see 

such a disproportion : the holy-table standing one way in 

the mother-church, and quite otherwise in the parochial 

annexed/ And truly, to see this, could be no commendation 

of the discipline of the Church of England. But howsoever, 

Mr. Clarke (the other witness with Wyan, and agreeing with 

him in the most) says plainly, that it was the L. of Arundel r 

that spake this, not I ; and that he was seconded in it by the 

L. Weston, then L. Treasurer s , not by me. 

The last charge of this day was a passage out of one VIII. 
Mr. Shelford s book, pp. 20, 21, < That they must take the 
reverend prelates for their examples 1 / &c. And Mr. Pryn 
witnessed, the like was in the Missal/ p. 256. Mr. Shelford 
is a mere stranger to me ; his book I never read ; if he have 
said anything unjust or untrue, let him answer for himself. 
As for the like to that, which he says, being in the Missal, 
though that be but a weak argument, yet let him solve it. 

Here this day ending, I was put .off* to Saturday, June 1. Junii 1. 
And then again put off to Thursday, June 6, which held. Junii 6. 

r [Thomas Howard, Earl Marshall.] fathers, the prelates, and others, make 

s [Richard Weston, created Baron their reverence to God on this wise, 

Weston, and Earl of Portland. He both on their entry and return, &c." 

was Lord High Treasurer from July Five Pious and Learned Discourses, 

15, 1628, to his death in 1634.] by Robert Shelford, of Ringsfield, in 

* [" Let us learn of our mother Suffolk, Priest. Serm. i. On God s 

Churches, for there our reverend House, p. 20. Camb. 1635,] 


CAP. XXXIV. 329 


Thursday, THIS day Sergeant Wild, instead of beginning with a new 
1644 1 6 charge, made another long reply to my answers of the former 
Die Duo- (lay. Whether he found that his former reply made at the 
time, was weak, and so reputed, I cannot tell. " But another 
he made, as full of premeditated weakness, as the former was 
of sudden. Mr. Pryn I think perceived it, and was often at 
his ear ; but Mr. Sergeant was little less than angry, and 
would on. I knew I was to make no answer to any reply, 
and so took no notes : indeed, holding it all as it was, that 
is, either nothing, (174) or nothing to the purpose. This 
tedious reply ended 

I. Then came on the first charge about the window of coloured 
glass set up in the new chapel at Westminster a . It was the 
history of the coming down of the Holy Ghost upon the 
Apostles. This was charged to be done by me, and at my 
cost : the witnesses, Mr. Brown, employed in setting up the 
window, and Mr. Sutton the glazier. 

These men say, that Dr. Newell, Sub-dean of Westminster 15 , 
gave order for the window and the setting of it up; but they 
know not at whose cost, nor was any order given from me. 5 
So here s nothing charged upon me. And if it were, I know 
nothing amiss in the window. As for the King s arms being 
taken down (as they say), let them answer that did it. 
Though I believe, that the King s arms standing alone in a 

a [This was Tothilfields Chapel, first Sermon in it (Newc. Repert, vol. 

erected 1631-1636 ; Dr. George Dar- i. pp. 722, 923). The window referred 

rell, one of the Prebendaries of "West- to was demolished by order of Parlia- 

minster, having in the former of these ment (Prynne, Cant. Doom, p. 93).] 
years left 400 for the purpose. It b [Robert Newell, Prebendary of 

was first opened by order of the House the ninth stall, and Archdeacon of 

of Commons, dated Dec. 9, 1642, and Buckingham. He was half brother of 

by their further order of Dec. 18. Abp. Neile. He had died in 1643. 

Dr. Gouge, of Blackfriars, preached the (Wood, P. 0. i. 289.)] 


white window, was not taken down out of any ill meaning, Die Duo- 
but only out of necessity to make way for the history. deeimo. 

The second charge was the picture of the B. Virgin set II. 
upon a new-built door at S. Mary s in Oxford. Here Alder 
man Nixon c says, that some passengers put off their hats, 
and, as he supposes, to that picture/ But, my Lds., his 
supposal is no proof. He says, that the next day he saw it. 
But what did he see ? Nothing, but the putting off the hat ; 
for he could not see why, or to what ; unless they which put 
off, told it. They might put off to some acquaintance that 
passed by. He further says, he saw a man in that porch 
upon his knees, and he thinks praying ; but he cannot say to 
that. But then (" if the malice he hath long borne me, 
would have suffered him") he might have stayed till he knew 
to whom he was praying, for till then it is no evidence. He 
says, he thinks that I countenanced the setting of it up, 
because it was done by Bp. Owen d . But Mr. Bromfeeld, 
who did that work, gave testimony to the Lords, that I had 
nothing to do in it. He says, there was an image set up at 
Carfax Church, but pulled down again 6 by Mr. Widdows f , 
Vicar there/ But this hath no relation at all to me. 
" This picture of the B. Virgin was twice mentioned before. 
And Sir Nath. Brent could say nothing to it but hearsay. 
And Mr. Corbet did not so much as hear of any abuse. And 
now Alderman Nixon says, he saw hats put off ; but the wise 
330 man knows not to what. Nor is there any show of proof 
offered, that I had any hand or approbation in the setting of 
it up. Or that ever any complaint was made to me of any 
abuse to it, or dislike of it. And yet Mr. Brown, when he 
gave the sum of the charge against me, insisted upon this 
also, as some great fault of mine, which I cannot yet see." 

In the next charge, Mr. Sergeant is gone back again to III. 
White-Hall, as in the former to Oxford. The witnesses are 
Mrs. Charnocks and her daughter. They say they went 

c [See Nixon s testimony in volved him in controversy with Prynne, 

Prynne s Cant. Doom, p. 72.] who had been his pupil at Oriel. He 

d [See above, p. 220.] died in 164$ (Wood, Ath. Ox. iii. 179). 

e [Prynne (Cant, Doom, p. 72) says See also Laud s History of Chancellor- 
it was erected by Widdowes.] ship, Works, vol. v. p. 39, note ".] 

f [Giles Widdowes, the author of [Sec her testimony in Prynne b 

The Schismatical Puritan, which in- Cant, Doom, p. 69.] 


Die Duo- (being at court) into the chapel, and it seems a woman with 
decimo. them, that was a Papist : and that < while they were there, 
Dr. Brown h , one of the King s Chaplains, came in, bowed 
toward the communion-table, and then at the altar kneeled 
down to his prayers/ I do not know of any fault Dr. Brown 
committed, either in doing reverence to God, or praying, 
and there. And yet if he had committed any fault, I hope 
I shall not answer for him. I was not then Dean of the 
Chapel, nor did any ever complain to me. They say, that 
two strangers came into the chapel at the same time, and 
saw what Dr. Brown did, and said thereupon, that sure we 
did not differ much, and should be of one religion shortly. 
And that the woman which was with these witnesses, told 
them they were Priests/ First, this can no way relate to me ; 
for neither did these women complain to me of it, nor any 
from them. Secondly, if these two men were Priests, and 
did say as is testified ; are we ever a whit the nearer them 
in religion ? Indeed, if all the difference between Rome and 
us con(175)sisted in outward reverence, and no points of 
doctrine, some argument might hence be drawn; but the 
points of doctrine being so many and great, put stop enough 
to that. Thirdly, if recusants, Priests especially, did so 
speak, might it not be said in cunning, to discountenance all 
external worship in the service of God, that so they may 
have opportunity to make more proselytes? And tis no 
small advantage, to my knowledge, which they have this way 
made. " And this was the answer which I gave Mr. Brown, 
when he charged this upon me in the House of Commons." 

Here, before they went any further, Mr. Sergeant Wilde 
told the Lords, that when Sir Nath. Brent was employed in 
my visitation, he had instructions for particular churches, 
of which some were tacit intimations, and some express 1 . I 
know not to what end this was spoken; for no coherent 
charge followed upon it. But sure, he thinks Sir Nath. 
Brent very skilful in me, that he can understand my tacit 

h [Dr. Jonathan Brown, Dean of Herbert Croft, afterwards Bishop of 

Hereford, Prebendary of Westminster, Hereford. (Wood, F. 0. i. 456 ; and 

Rector of S. Faith s, London, and of Walker s Sufferings, p. 34.) ] 

Hertingfordbury in Herts. He died [See this point urged in Prynne s 

at the end of 1643, and was succeeded Cant. Doom, p. 89.] 
in his Deanery by his son-in-law, 


intimations, and know to what particular church to apply Die Duo- 
them. " And as I said no more at the bar, so neither did I decimo - 
think to say any more after ; yet now I cannot but a little 
bemoan myself. For ever since Mr. Maynard left off, who 
pleaded, though strongly, yet fairly against me, I have been 
in very ill condition between the other two. For from Mr. 
Nicolas I had some sense, but extreme virulent and foul 
language. Arid from Sergeant Wilde, language good enough 
sometimes, but little or no sense. For let me answer what 
I would, when he came to reply, he repeated the charge 
again, as if I had made no answer at all. Or as if all that I 
331 expressed never so plainly, had been but tacit intimations ; 
which I think he understood as much as Sir Nath. Brent 1 ." 

In the fourth charge, he told the Lords he would not IV. 
trouble them with repeating the evidence, but only put them 
in mind of some things in the case of Ferdinando Adams, of 
Ipswich k : of the men of Lewis suffering in the High-Com 
mission 111 : of the parishioners of Beckingtori n , and some 
others heard before; but would leave the Lords to their 
memory and their notes. Yet read over the sentences given 
in the High-Commission, and make a repetition of what 
soever might but make a show to render me odious to the 
people. " And this hath been their art all along, to run 
over the same thing twice and again (as they did here in the 
second charge about the picture of the B. Virgin) : to the 
end, that as the auditors changed, the more of them might 
hear it; and that which wrought not upon some, might upon 
others. In all which I patiently referred myself to my 
former answers, having no other way to help myself; in 
regard they pretended that they renewed the same instances, 
but not the same way ; but in one place, as against law ; and 
in another, as against religion. But why then did they in 
both places run over all circumstances appliable to both? 
1 . And on they went, too, with the men of Lewis, where one 

1 [The whole of this paragraph, Here, before . . . Brent. on opposite page.] 

k P. 131 [of original MS. See n P. 129 [of original MS. See 
above, p. 130.] above, p. 124.] 

m [SeePrynne sCant.Doom,p. 101.] 


Die Duo- Mr. ParnlyeP (they /say) was censured cruelly in the High- 
Commission, for not removing the communion-table/ The 
business was but this. Sir Nath. Brent, and his own ordi 
nary, Dr. Nevill q , ordered the remove of the table : He would 
not. For this contumacy he was censured, but enjoined l 
only to make his submission to Dr. Nevill. Which I think 
was a sentence far from any barbarous cruelty, as tis called. 

2. Another instance, and the next, was Mr. Burkct 1 . He 
says, he was censured also about removing the communion 
table, and for that only/ But first, this was not simply for 
removing the holy-table ; but it was for abetting the church 
wardens to remove it back again from the place, where 
lawful authority had set it. And secondly, whereas he says, 
he was censured for this only ; the very charge itself con 
futes him. For there tis said, that this, about removing of 
the communion-table, appears in the sixth article that was 
against him. Therefore there were five other articles at least 
more against him. And therefore not this only. 

3. The third instance was in Mr. Chancye s : and he like 
wise is said ( to have suffered very much only about railing in 
of the communion-table/ But this is not so neither. For 
he confesses that he spake reproachful words against authority, 
and in contempt of his ordinary. That he said, the rails 
were fit to be set up in his garden. That he came fifty miles 
from his own church, on purpose to countenance this busi 
ness. And all this he acknowledges upon his oath in his 
submission. And yet nothing laid upon him but suspension, 
and that no longer than till he submitted. And all this 
the act of the High-Commission, not mine. ee And so I 
answered Mr. Brown, who urged this against me also/ And 
the truth of all this appears apud Acta ; though they were 

1 [ enjoined in margin.] 

P [ Prynne calls him John Premly. ] 8 [Charles Chancey, formerly Vicar 

i [William Neville, D. C. L.," of of Ware, in Hertfordshire, at the time 

Merton Coll. and Chancellor of Chi- of the offence complained of, Vicar of 

Chester. (Wood, F. 0. i. 469.)] Marston St. Lawrence, in Northamp- 

1 [Miles Burkett was Vicar of Pates- tonshire. See a detailed account of the 

hull, in Northamptonshire. See some proceedings against him, his submis- 

of the charges against him in Prynnc, sion, &c., in Prynne, Cant. Doom, pp. 

Cant. Doom, p. 96.] 93 96.J 


taken away, and kept ever since from my use, yet many Die Duo- 
332 things done in that court have been charged against me. decimo - 
And here stepped in a testimony of Mr. Genebrards *, that I 
threatened openly in the High-Commission to suspend Dr. 
Merrick V And why might I not do it, if he will be over 
bold with the proceeding of the whole court ? I have known 
ere now, a very good lawyer committed from the Chancery 
Bar to the Meet. Though I shall spare names. 

(176) 4. The fourth instance was in Mr. Workman s case : 
charged as if he were sentenced only for preaching a sermon 
to the judges, against images in churches V 1. The first wit 
ness in the cause was Mr. Langly y : he says, Mr. Workman 
was censured for this sermon, and other things/ Therefore 
not for this sermon only : the High-Commissioners were 110 
such patrons of images. He says, ( that when I was Dean of 
Gloucester, I told them in the chapel, that K. James had 
heard of many things amiss in that church, and required 
me to take care of them/ Tis true, he did so. He says 
further, { that hereupon I placed the communion-table altar- 
wise, and commanded due reverence at the coming into the 
church 2 . This I did, and I have given my reason often 

t [ Prynne gives the name Gelli- place[d] altarwise at the upper ende of 

brand. He is a different person from the quier, close unt[o the east] walle, 

Gellibrand the writer of the almanack upon the uppermost greases or steppes, 

mentioned below. There were several An[d also] as it is used in the King s 

persons of that name who were book- Maties Chapell, and in a[ll] or the 

sellers at this time.] moste pte of the Cathedral! Churches 

u [See vol. iii. p. 450, note c .] of th[is] realme. 

* [See John Workman s case stated wmiam Laud Deane 

G S PP Thoi * as P * or Su * d - 

[John Langley was admitted Mas- EHas Wrenehe " 
ter of the Cathedral School, March 

161|-, as appears by the Acts of the (The other Prebendaries at this time 

Chapter of Gloucester. In 1640 he were Laurence Bridger, William Loe, 

was elected Master of S. Paul s School and Thomas Anyan, of whom Loe and 

in the room of Alexander Gill, men- Anyan had dispensations of absence.) 

tioncd above, p. 80, note f .] On the 17th of Jan. an order was 

z [The following is the entry in the made and signed by Laud and the 

Act Book of Gloucester Chapter : same three Prebendaries for the repair 

" Acta, habita, et facta vicesimo of the fabric. 

qui[nto] die Januarii Anno Dom. 1616 There is also in the same Act Book 

[1617] . . . Quibus die et anno venera- an order for the restoration of the 

bilis vir Decanus antedictus sacra- early prayers in the Lady Chapel, 

mentum prsestitit corporale. . . . signed by Laud, Wrench, and Prior, 

" Eodem die post susceptum Jura- March 9, 1617; and on the 13th day 

mentum, It was by Mr. Deane and the of the same month a letter addressed 

Chapter aforesaid ordered and decreed, by the same three persons to the 

that the communion table should be gentry of the county, requesting their 


Die Duo- already for it, out of the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth. 
decimo. He say ^ , ^^ ^ s ^ o ^ Smith a took offence at this, and would 

come no more to the cathedral/ First, my Lords, this 
gentleman was then schoolmaster there, and had free access 
unto me: he never discovered this. Secondly, the Bishop 
himself never said a word to me about it : if he had, I would 
either have satisfied his Lp. in that, or anything else that I 
did : or if he had satisfied me, I would have forborne it : he 
says, ( that Mr. Workman, after he was put from his lecture, 
was not suffered to teach children/ First, if he had been 
suffered, this man had been like to make the first complaint 
for decay of his own school. But secondly, the commission 
thought it no way fit to trust him with the education of 
children, who had been factious among men. Especially not 
in that place, where he had so showed himself. " And this 
answer I gave to Mr. Brown, who in summing the evidence 
stood as much, and inveighed as earnestly against this cruel 
proceeding with Mr. Workman, as upon any one thing in 
the charge. At which time he added also, that he would 
not be suffered to practise physic to get his living. But 
first, no witness evidenceth this, that he was denied to 
practise physic. And secondly, he might have taught a 
school, or practised physic anywhere else. But he had done 
so much harm, and made such a faction in Gloucester, as 
that the High-Commission thought it not fit to continue him 
there ; and he was not willing to go from thence, where he had 
made his party l ." He says further, that some few of the 
citizens of Gloucester were called into the High-Commission, 
for an annuity of twenty pound a year allowed Mr. Work 
man, out of the town stock. For the thing itself, it was a 
gross abuse and scorn put upon that court ; that when they 
had censured a schismatical lecturer (for such he was there 

1 [ And this . . . party. on opposite page.] 

aid and assistance towards the erection tracts to the Kev. Herbert Haines, 

of a new organ. M. A., Second Master of the Gloucester 

There is a further order on the 20th Cathedral School.] 

of the following October, relating to a [Miles Smith ; Bp. of Gloucester, 

the repairs of the church, and direct- 1612 1624. He took an active part 

ing that the fees for burial should be as one of the translators of the Bible, 

applied to that purpose. and wrote the Preface which is pre- 

The Editor is indebted for these ex- fixed to it. (Wood, Ath. Ox. ii. 350.)] 


proved) the townsmen should make him an allowance of Die Duo- 
twenty pound a year. A thing (as I humbly conceive) not fit decimo - 
to be endured in any settled * government. And whereas cla 
mour is made, that some few of the citizens were called to an 
account for it, that s as strange on the other side. For where 
there are many offenders, the noise would be too great to 
333 call all. And yet here s noise enough made for calling a 
few. Here it was replied by Mr. Maynard, that this was 
done by that corporation, and yet a few singled out to 
answer ; and that therefore I might be singled out to answer 
for things done in the High-Commission/ " But, under 
favour, this learned and worthy gentleman is mistaken. For 
here the mayor and magistrates of Gloucester did that which 
was no way warrantable by their charter, in which case they 
may be accountable, all or some : but in the High-Commission 
we meddled with no cause not cognoscible there ; or if by 
misinformation we did, we were sure of a prohibition to stop 
us. And meddling with nothing but things proper to them, 
I conceive still, no one man can be singled out to suffer for 
that which was done by all. And this may serve to answer 
Mr. Brown also, who in his last reply upon me, when I 
might not answer, made use of it." 

2. The second witness was Mr. Purye of Gloucester b . He 
says, that Mr. Brewster and Mr. Guies c the town-clerk, 
were called to the Council-table about this annuity, and that 
I desired it might be further examined at the High-Commis 
sion. If this were true, I know no offence in it, to desire that 
such an affront to Government might be more thoroughly 
examined than the Lds. had leisure to do. But the witness 
doth not give this in evidence. For he says no more, than 
that he heard so from Mr, Brewster/ And this hearsay is 
no conviction. He says further, that the High-Commission 
called upon this business of the annuity, as informed that the 
twenty pound given to Mr. Workman, was taken out of the 
monies for the poor/ And this I must still think was a good 

i [< settled inserted afterwards.] 

b [Alderman Thomas Fury, M. P. c [Prynne calls them Buckston 
for Gloucester in the Long Parlia- and Wise ; but in the list of errata 
ment.J corrects the latter name to Guise. ] 


Die Duo- and a sufficient ground, justly to call them in question. He 
says also, that these men were fined,, because that which 
they did was against authority/ So by their own witness it 
appears, that they were not fined simply for allowing means 
to Mr. Workman, but for doing it in opposition to authority. 
Lastly, he says, they were (177) fined ten pound apiece, and 
that presently taken off again/ So here was no such great per 
secution as is made in the cause. And for the cancelling of 
this deed of the annuity, it was done by themselves, as Mr. 
Langlye witnesses ] . 

After these two witnesses heard, the sentence of the High- 
Commission Court was read, which I could not have come at, 
had not they produced it. And by that it appeared evidently, 
that Mr. Workman was censured, as well for other things as 
for his sermon about images in churches. As first, he said, 
e so many paces in dancing were so many to hell/ This was 
hard, if he meant the measures in the inns of court at 
Christmas ; and he excepted none 2 . Then he said, and was 
no way able to prove it, that drunkards, so they were con 
formable, were preferred/ Which was a great and a notorious 
slander upon the governors of the Church, and upon orderly 
and conformable men. Then he said, ( that election of 
ministers was in the people/ And this is directly against 
the laws of England, in the right of all patrons. Then con 
stantly in his prayer before his sermon, he prayed for the 
States d and the King of Sweden, before his Majesty, which 
was the garb of that time, among that party of men. Then, 
that one of his common themes of preaching to the people, 
was against the Government of the Church/ And then, that 
images in churches were no better than stews in the Com- 334 
monwealth/ which at the best is a very unsavoury comparison. 
But here it was replied, that images were idols, and so 
called in the Homilies e , and that therefore the comparison 
might hold/ Yea, but in the second homily, Against the 
Peril of Idolatry, images or pictures in glass or hangings are 
expressly and truly said not to be idols till they be worshipped f . 

1 [ And for ... witnesses. on opposite page.] 

2 [ and he excepted none. in margin.] 

d [Of Holland.] p. iii. p. 92. [p. 187. Oxf. 1814.] 

e Horn, against the Peril of Idola. f .[P. 164.] 


And therefore Mr. Workman should not have compared their Die Duo- 
setting up to stews, till he could have proved them worshipped. decimo - 
And in all this, were the act good or bad in the censuring of 
him, it was the act of the High- Commission, not mine. 

After this followed the fifth charge, which was Mr. Sher- V. 
feild s case, his sentence in the Star-chamber for defacing of 
a church -window in or near Salisbury g . The witnesses pro 
duced were two. 1. The first was Mr. Carill 11 . He said that 
Mr. Sherfeild defaced this window, because there was an 
image in it, conceived to be the picture of God the Father. 
But first, this comes not home. For many a picture may be 
conceived to be of God the Father, which yet is not, nor was 
ever made for it. And then suppose it were so, yet Mr. 
Sherfeild in a settled government of a State ought not to 
have done it, but by command of authority. He says, that 
in my speech there in the court, I justified the having of the 
picture of God the Father, as he remembers, out of Dan. 
vii. 2.2 l . This as he remembers came well in. For I never 
justified the making or having that picture. ts For Calvin s 
rule, that we may picture that which may be seen*/ is 
grounded upon the negative, that no picture may be made of 
that which was never, never can be seen. And to ground 
this negative, is the command given by Moses, Deut. iv. j 
Take good heed to yourselves/ For what ? That you make 
not to yourselves this picture. Why ? For that you saw no 
manner of similitude, in the day that the Lord spake unto 
you out of the midst of the fire. Out of the midst of the 
fire, and yet He still reserved himself in thick darkness/ 
Exod. xx. k So no picture of Him, because no similitude ever 
seen. And this rule having ever possessed me wholly, I 
could not justify the having of it. I said indeed, that some 
men in later superstitious times, were so foolish as to picture 

1 [ out of Dan vii. 22. in margin.] 

e [See above, p. 169, note b , and and was appointed by the Parliament 

Prynne s Cant. Doom, pp. 102, 103. to attend the King at the scaffold. A 

The passages of the speech here re- list of his works are given by Wood 

ferred to may be compared with the (Ath. Ox. iii. 979983).] 

speech itself in vol. vi.] Calv. 1. Instit. c. 11, 12. [Op., 

h [Joseph Caryll, preacher at Lin- torn. ix. p. 22.] 

coin s Inn. He was one of the chap- J Deut. iv. 15, 16. 

lains to the commissioners who visited k Exod. xx. 21. 
the King at Holdenby and Newport, 


Die Duo- God the Father, by occasion of that place in Daniel ; but for 
mo * myself I ever rejected it. Nor can that place bear any show 
of it. For Daniel says there, that the Ancient of days came/ 
But in what shape or similitude He came, no man living can 
tell. And He is called the Ancient of days from His eternity, 
not as if He appeared like an old man. The text hath no 
warrant at all for that. 

2. Yet the second witness, Mr. Tomlyns 1 , says also, that 
I did justify this picture/ " God forgive him the malice or 
ignorance of this oath, be it which it will." He might have 
been as wary as Mr. Caril, and added as he remembers ; 
for so many years since, as this hearing was, he may easily 
mistake. But if I did say any such thing, why are not my 
own papers here produced against me ? I had that written 
which I then spake, and the paper was in my study with the 
rest, and came (for aught I know) into their hands which 
follow the charge against me. I ask again, why is not this 
paper produced? Out of all doubt it would, had there 
appeared any such thing in it \ He says also, that I said 
then, that if the idol of Jupiter were set up, yet it were not 335 
lawful to pull it down in a popular tu(178)mult, but by order 
and authority/ I did say so, or to that effect, indeed: and 
must say it still. For I find in St. Aug. almost the very 
words m . And Bishop Davenant n , a man very learned, cites 
this place of St. Aug. and approves it. And they both prove 
this doctrine from Deut. xii. Where the command given 
for destroying of the idols, when they came into the land of 
Canaan, was not left at large to the people, but settled in 
Moses the chief magistrate, and his power. And according 
to this rule, the temple of ^Esculapius, though then grown 
very scandalous, was not pulled down but by Constantino s 
command P. Which place I then showed the Lords. But 

1 [< But if ... in it. on opposite page.] 

1 [A barrister of the Temple.] (al. de Verb. Dom. vi.) 17. Op., t. v. 

m [" Cum acceperitis potestatem, hoc col. 520. C. D.] 

facite. Ubi nobis non est data po- n [Exposit. Epist. D. Pauli ad Co- 

testas, non facimus ; ubi data est, non loss. cap. iv. ver. 5. p. 490. Cant, 

prsetermittimus. Multi pagan i habent 1627.] 

istas abominationes in fundis suis ; Deut. vii. 5, and xii. 2. 

numquid accedimus, et confrangimus ? p Euseb. [lib.] iii. de Vita Constan. 

Prius enim agimus, ut idola in eorum c. 54, [cap. 56. pp. 611,612. Cant, 

corde frangamus." S. Aug.Serm. Ixii. 1720.] 


this witness added, that Mr. Sherfeild had authority to do Die Duo- 
this from the vestry. If he had, that s as good as none ; for e 
by the laws of England there is yet no power given them for 
that or anything else. And all that vestries do, is by usurpa 
tion or consent of the parish, but reaches not this 1 . The 
Bishop of the diocese had been fitter to be consulted herein, 
than the vestry. 

Here, as if these witnesses had not said enough, Mr. 
Nicolas offered himself to be a witness. And told the Lords 
he was present at the hearing of this cause, and that four 
witnesses came in clear, that the picture broken down, was 
the picture of God the Father, and that yet the sentence of 
the court passed against Mr. Sherfeild/ First, if this be so, 
it concludes against the sentence given in the Star-chamber, 
not against me ; and he calls it here ( the sentence of the 
court. Secondly, be it, that it were undoubtedly the picture 
of God the Father ; yet he ought to have taken authority 
along with him, and not to go about it with violence, which 
he did, and fell and brake his leg in the business 2 . Thirdly, 
by his own description of the picture, it seems to me to be 
some old fabulous picture out of a legend, and not one of 
God the Father : for he then told the Lords, it was a pic 
ture of an old man with a budget by his side, out of which 
he was plucking Adam and Eve ; and I believe no man ever 
saw God the Father so pictured anywhere. " Lastly, let me 
observe how Mr. Nicolas takes all parts upon him wherein he 
may hope to do me mischief." 

The sixth charge was concerning a Bible, that was printed VI. 
with pictures, and sold. The witness Mr. Walsal ^ a stationer. 
Who says, that this Bible was licensed by Dr. Weeks r / my 
Ld. of London s Chaplain, not mine ; so thus far it concerns 
not me. " Yes, says Mr. Brown in his last reply : For it 
appears in a list of my chaplains under my own hand, that 
Dr. Weeks was one. Tis true, when I was Bp. of Bath and 

1 [ or consent . . . this. in margin.] 

2 [ which he ... business. in margin.] 

i [Walley, the clerk of Stationer s Rector of Banwell, March 4, 16, and 

Hall. (Prynne, Cant. Doom, p. 109.)] afterwards Dean of S. Buryanin Corn- 

r [John Weekes was installed Pre- wall (Wood, F. 0. ii. 68). Prynne 

bendary of the third stall in Bristol states that these pictures were licensed 

Cathedral, March 3, 1633, (Le Neve,) not by Weekes, but by Dr. Bray.] 


Die Duo- Wells he was mine ; but my Ld. of London had him from 
me, so soon as ever he was Bishop. And was his, not mine, 
when he licensed that book. And Mr. Brown knew that I 
answered it thus to the Lords." He says, that I gave him 
direction that they should not be sold openly upon the stalls, 
but only to discreet men that knew how to use them/ The case 
was this. As I was at prayers in the King s chapel, I there 
saw one of them in Mrs. Kirk s hand. She was far enough 
from any affection to Rome. And this being the first know 
ledge I had of it, many were vented and sold before I could 
prevent it. Upon this I sent for one (whether to this witness 
or another I cannot say), and acquainted the Lords of the 
Council with it, and craved their direction what should be 336 
done. It was there ordered, that I should forbid the open 
sale of them upon their stalls, but not otherwise to learned 
and discreet men. And when I would have had this order 
stricter, no man stuck to me but Mr. Secretary Cook. So 
according to this order I gave direction to Mr. Walsal, as he 

Here Mr. Maynard replied, that I ought to have withstood 
this order, in regard it was every way faulty. For, said he, 
either these pictures were good, or bad. And if they were 
good, why should they not be sold openly upon the stalls to 
all that would buy ? And if they were bad, why should they 
be sold privately to any ? "To this reply I was not suffered 
to answer : but when I heard Mr. Brown charge this Bible 
with pictures against me, then I answered the thing as before, 
and took occasion thereby to answer this dilemma thus. 
Namely, that this kind of argument concludes not, but in 
things necessary, and where no medium can be given. For 
where a medium can be given, the horns of this argument 
are too weak to hurt. And so - tis here. For pictures in 
themselves are things indifferent; not simply good, nor 
simply bad, but as they are used. And therefore they were 
not to be sold to all comers, because they may be abused, 
and become evil ; and yet might be sold to learned and dis 
creet men, who might turn them to good. And that images 
are things indifferent of themselves, is granted in the homilies 
which are against the very Peril of Idolatry 8 ." He said, 
* Horn, par.i. p. 11. [p. 155.] 


< there was some inconvenient pictures among them ; as the Die Duo- 
Assumption, and the Dove/ Be it so, the book was not decimo - 
licensed by me or mine. And yet, as I then showed the 
Lords, they were not so strict at Amsterdam against these 
pictures. For the book which Mr. Walsal showed me, was 
printed and sent thence, before it was printed here. Besides, 
our old English Bibles in the beginning of the Queen were 
full of pictures ; and no fault found. As for that which is 
added at the bar, that one of these Bibles was found in 
Secretary Windebank s trunk, and another in Sir Jo. Lamb s ; 
that s nothing to me. 

The last charge of this day was, that something about 
images was expunged out of Dr. Featly s l sermons, by my 
chaplain, Dr. Bray, before they could be suffered to be 
printed V But first, he himself confesses, that I told him he 
might print them, so nothing were in them contrary to the 
doctrine and discipline of the Church of England. Secondly, 
he confesses, that when Dr. Bray made stay of them, he 
never complained to me ; and I cannot remedy that which I 
do not know. Thirdly, he confesses, that all the time he 
was in Lambeth-House, my predecessor ever left that care of 
the press upon his chaplains ; and why I might not do it as 
well as my predecessor, I do not yet know. But he said, 
that he complained to Sir Edmund Scott, and desired to be 
advised by him what he should do : and that he answered, 
he thought I would not meddle with that troublesome busi 
ness, more than my predecessors had done. " Be this so, 
yet Sir Ed. Scott never told me this ; nor is there any the 
least proof offered that he did. But because this and the like 
passages about expunging some things out of books, makes 
such a great noise, as if nothing concerning popery might be 
printed : and because Mr. Brown in summing up of the 
charge in the House of Commons, warmly insisted upon this 
337 particular, I thought it necessary to answer as follows. That 
what moved my chaplain to expunge that large passage 
against images, I knew not ; nor could I now know, my 

1 [ Dr. Featly s in margin; originally his ] 

[The passage said to have been 788, is given by Prynnc, Cant. Doom, 
erased from Dr. Featley s Sermons, p. pp. 108, 109.] 



Die Duo- chaplain being dead u . But that this I was sure of, that else- 
decimo. w ] iere i n those very sermons, there was as plain a passage, 
and full against images, left in x . And in another place a 
whole leaf together, spent to prove them idolaters > T ; and 
that as gross as the Baalists, and so he terms them. Yea, 
and that the Pope is Antichrist too z , and not only called so, 
but proved by divers arguments. And not so only, but in 
plain terms, that he is the whore of Babylon a . And these 
passages I then read out of the book itself in the House of 
Commons. And many other like to these there are. So my 
chaplain might see good cause to leave out some passages. 
Where so many upon as good cause were left in." 

But to the business of leaving the care of these books, and 
the overview of them, to my chaplains, it was then urged, 
That the commissary of John Ld. Archbp. of York, had 
excommunicated the Ld. Bp. of Durham, being then in the 
King s service. And that the Archbp. himself w r as deeply 
fined for this act of his commissary b . And that therefore I 
ought much more to be answerable for my chaplain s act, 
whom I might put away when I would, than he for his com 
missary, who had a patent, and could not be put out at 
pleasure . Mr. Brown also followed this precedent close 
upon me. But first, there is a great deal of difference in the 
thing itself : my chaplain s case being but the leaving out of 
a passage in a book to be printed : but his commissary s 
case being the excommunicating of a great bishop, and he in 
the King s service, of whose honour the laws of this realm 
are very tender. And secondly, the Bp. and his official 
(call him chancellor or commissary, or what you will) make 
but one person in law ; and therefore the act of the com 
missary to the full extent of his patent, is the act of the 
Bishop in legal construction, and the Bishop may be answer- 

u [Dr. Bray had died early in this revocable at the pleasure of the Bishop. 

year.] H. W. 

* Dr. Featly s Sermons, [Clavis c [This case is mentioned by Prynne 

Mystica,] p. 477. [See also, pp. 787, (Cant. Doom, p. 517). The circum- 

788. Lond. 1636.] stance took place in 21 Edw. I. 1292, 

- v [Senn. Ivii.] p. 791. 1293. The Abp. of York at that time 

z [Serm. lx.] p. 808. was John Romain, and the Bp. of 

a [Ibid.] p. 810. Durham, Anthony Beck. The Bishop 

This was done long before the of Durham s servants, not himself, 

Reformation; when the patents of were excommunicated.] 

Chancellors and Commissaries were 


able for it. But the Bp. and his chaplain are not one person Die Duo- 
in any construction of law. " And say he may put away his decimo> 
chaplain when he will, yet that cannot help what is past, if 
aught have been done amiss by him. And this was the 
answer I insisted on to Mr. Brown V 

Upon my entrance on this day s defence, I found myself 
aggrieved at the Diurnal, and another pamphlet of the week, 
wherein they print whatsoever is charged against me, as if it 
were fully proved; never so much as mentioning what, or 
how I answered. And that it troubled me the more, because 
(as I conceived) the passages as there expressed, trenched 
deep upon the justice and proceedings of that honourable 
House. And could have no aim but to incense the multitude 
against me. With some difficulty I got these pamphlets re 
ceived, but there they died, and the weekly abuse of me 
continued to keep my patience in breath. 

1 [The whole of this paragraph is written on an inserted slip of paper.] 

li 2 






I. THE first charge of this day, was the opinion which was 
Junii 11, held of me beyond the seas. The first witness was Sir 
Whitsun- Henry Mildmaye, who (as is before related) a told me with- 
Tuesday. ou t asking, that (180) I was the most hateful man at Rome, 
mo-tertio. that ever sate in my see since the Reformation. Now he 
denied not this, " but being helped on by good preparation, 
a flexible conscience, and a fair leading interrogatory by Mr. 
Nicolas," (Mr. Sergeant Wilde was sick, and came no more 
till the last day when I made my recapitulation J ) he minced 
it. And now he says, that there were two factions at Rome, 
and that one of them did indeed speak very ill of me, because 
they thought I aimed at too great a power here in England ; 
but the other faction spake as well of me, because they 
thought I endeavoured to bring us in England nearer to the 
Church of Rome/ But first, my Lords, this gentleman s 
words to me were round and general : That I was hated at 
Rome; not of a party, or faction there. And my servants 
heard him at the same time, and are here ready to witness it, 
that he then said the Pope was a goodly gentleman, and did 
use to ride two or three great horses in a morning, and, but 
that he was something taller, he was as like Auditor Philips 
(who was then at dinner with me) as could be/ But I pray 
mark what wise men he makes them at Rome : one faction 
hates me, because I aim at too much power : and the other 
loves me, because I would draw England nearer Rome ; why, 
if I went about to draw England nearer Rome, can any 
among them be such fools as to think my power too great? 
For if I used my power for them, why should any there 

1 [ Mr. Sergeant . . . recapitulation, in margin.] 

a [See above, p. 207. Sir Henry 
Mildmay s evidence is given by 

Prynne, Cant. Doom, pp. 412, 413.] 


condemn me ? And if I used it against them, why should Die Deei- 
any here accuse me 1 ? " Non sunt JKEC bene divisa tempo- mo " ter 10 * 
ribus b . These things suit not with the times, or the dis 
positions of Rome : but the plain truth is, I do not think 
that ever he was at Rome ; I after heard a whisper, that he 
only stepped into France for another cure, not to Rome for 
curiosity, which was the only cause he gave the Lords of his 
going thither." 

2. The second witness was Mr. Challoner c . He says not 
much of his own knowledge, but of fame, that tattling gossip ; 
yet he told the Lords, I was a very obscure man, till within 
these fifteen years/ Be it so, if he please. Yet I have been 
a Bishop above three and twenty years d : and tis eighteen 
years since I was first Dean of his Majesty s Chapel Royal 6 . 
He says, that after this time there was a strong opinion of 
reconciliation to Rome/ A strong opinion, but a weak proof. 
For it was an opinion of enemies, and such as could easily 
believe, what they overmuch desired. He further said, that 
some of them were of opinion, that I was a good Roman 
Catholic, and that I wrought cunningly to introduce that 
339 religion by inches : and that they prayed for me/ First, my 
Lords, the opinion of enemies is no proof at all, that I am 
such as they think me. And secondly, this is a notable, and 
no unusual piece of cunning, for an enemy to destroy by 
commending. For this was the ready way, and I doubt not 
but it hath been practised, to raise a jealousy against me at 
home, thereby either to work the ruin of my person, or 
utterly to weaken and disable me from doing harm to them, 
or good for the Church of England. Besides, if the com 
mendation of enemies may in this kind go for proof; it shall 
be in the power of two or three practising Jesuits, to destroy 
any bishop or other churchman of England when they please. 
At last, he told a story of one father John, a Benedictine ; 
that he asked him how church-livings were disposed in 

1 [ For if ... accuse me] in margin.] 

[Ter. Andr. iii. 1. 18.] p. 136. 1 )] 

c [See his evidence in Prynne s e [He was appointed Oct. 3, 1626, 

Cant. Doom, pp. 414, 415.] on the death of Bp. Andrewes. (Works, 

d [He was appointed Bp. of St. Da- vol. iii. p. 196.)] 
vid s June 29, 1621. (Works, vol. iii. 


Die Deci- England, and whether I had not the disposing of those which 
tio. were i n th e King s gift. And concluded, that he was not out 
of hope to see England reduced to Rome/ Why, my Lords, 
this is not Father John s hope alone : for there is no Roman 
Catholic f but hath some hope alive in him to see this day. 
And were it not for that hope, there would not have been so 
many, some desperate, all dangerous practices upon this 
kingdom to effect it, both in Queen Elizabeth s time, and 
since. But if this, I know not what, Father John hope so, 
what is that to me ? 

3. The third witness was Mr. Anthony Mildmaye %. A man 
not thought on for a witness, till I called for his brother Sir 
Henry. But now he comes laden with his brother s language. 
He says just as Sir Henry did before, that there were two 
factions in Rome, the Jesuits, and they abhorred me; but 
the other, the secular priests, they wished me well, as he was 
informed/ First, this is so one and the same testimony, 
that any man that will may see, that either he informed his 
brother, or his brother (181) him. Secondly, here s nothing 
affirmed ; for it is but as he was informed/ And he doth 
not tell you by whom. It may be, my Lords, it was by his 
brother. Then he says, this was to make myself great/ and 
tells a tale of Father Fitton h , as much to the purpose as that 
which Mr. Challoner told of Father John. But whatsoever 
either of these fathers said, it was but their own opinion of 
me, or hearsay ; neither of which can prove me guilty of any 
thing. " Thus much Mr. Anthony made a shift to say by 
five of the clock at afternoon, when I came to make my 
answer. And this (as I have sufficient cause to think) only 
to help to shore up his brother s testimony. But in the 
morning, when he should have come, as his brother did, he 
was by nine in the morning so drunk, that he was not able 
to come to the bar, nor to speak common sense, had he been 
brought thither. Nobile par fratrum i ." 
II. The second charge was the ( consecration of two churches 

The Archbishop calls the English s [See his evidence in Prynne s 

Papists Roman Catholics, not as al- Cant. Doom, p. 413.] 

lowing them to be such ; but referring h [Agent for the secular priests at 

to that name which some of them were Rome.] 

before said to have affixed to him. ! [Hor. Sat. ii. 3. 243.] 
H. W. 


in London : St. Catherine Cree church k , and St. Giles in the Die Deci- 
Fields. The witnesses two. 

1. The first witness was one Mr. Willingham. And he 
says, that I came to these churches in a pompous manner : 
but all the pomp that he mentions is, that Sir Henry Martin, 
Dr. Duck, and some other of the Arches attended me, as they 
340 usually do their Diocesans in such solemnities. He says, 
he did curiously observe what was done, thinking it would 
one day be called to account, as now it is. So this man 
(himself being judge) looked upon that work with a malevolent 
eye, and God preserve him from being a malicious witness. 
He says, that at my approach to the church door, was read, 
Lift up your heads, O ye gates, and be ye lift up, ye ever 
lasting doors, and the King of Glory shall come in V Psal. 
xxiv. And this was urged over and over as a jeer upon my 
person. But this place of Scripture hath been anciently 
used in consecrations. And it relates not to the Bp., but to 
God Almighty, the true King of Glory, who at the dedication 
enters by His servant to take possession of the house, then to 
be made^His. He says, that I kneeled down at my coming 
in, and after used many bowings and cringings. For my 
kneeling down at my entrance, to begin with prayer, and 
after to proceed with reverence, I did but my duty in that, 
let him scoffingly call it cringing, or ducking/ or what 
he please. 

He says further, that at the beginning I took up dust, 
and threw it in the air, and after used divers curses/ And 
here Mr. Pryn put Mr. Nicolas in mind to add, that spar (/ere 
cinerem is in the form of consecration used in the Pontifical. 
" And Mr. Brown, in his summary account of my charge, 
laid the very consecration of these churches as a crime upon 
me ; and insisted on this particular." But here my answer 
to all was the same : that this witness had need look well to 
his oath ; for there was no throwing up of dust, no curses 
used throughout the whole action: nor did I follow the 
Pontifical, but a copy of learned and reverend Bp. Andrews m , 
by which he consecrated divers churches in his time : and 
that this is so, I have the copy by me to witness, and offered 

k [See Prynne s burlesque account 1 Psal. xxiv. 7. 

of this consecration, Cant. Doom, pp. m [See Bp. Andrewes Miscellaneous 
113 seq.] Works, pp. 307 seq.] 


Die Deci- them to show it. Nor can this howsoever savour any way of 
t10 treason. " No, said Mr. Brown, but the treason is, to seek, 
by these ceremonies, to overthrow the religion established/ 
Nor was that ever sought by me : and God of His mercy 
preserve the true Protestant religion amongst us, till the 
consecration of churches, and reverence in the church, can 
overthrow it ; and then I doubt not, but by God s blessing, 
it shall continue safe to the world s end." 

He says also, that I did pronounce the place holy. I did 
so : and that was in the solemn act itself of the consecration, 
according to the usual form in that behalf. And no man will 
deny, but that there is a derivative and a relative holiness n> 
in places, as well as in vessels, and other things dedicated to 
the honour and service of God. Nor is anything more com 
mon in the Old Testament ; and tis express in the New both 
for place and things . 1 Cor. ix. 

Then it was urged at the bar, that a prayer which I used, 
was like one that is in the Pontifical/ So in the Missal are 
many prayers like to the Collects used in our English Liturgy, 
so like, that some are the very same, translated only into 
English ; and yet these confirmed by law. And for that of 
Psal. xcv. Venite (182) procidamus P, &c., then also excepted 
against , that hath been F of very ancient use in the Liturgies 
of the Church. From which, rejecimus paleam, numquid et 
(jrana ? we have separated the chaff, shall we cast away the 
corn too ? If it come to that, let us take heed we fall not 
upon the devil s winnowing, who labours to beat down the 
corn ; tis not the chaff that troubles him**, S. Luc. xxii. Then 341 
they urged my predecessor, Archbp. Parker r , that he found 
fault with the consecration of new churches/ I answered 
then upon memory, that he did not find fault simply with 
consecrations of churches, but only with the superstitious 
ceremonies used therein. " And this since, upon perusal of 

1 [ then also excepted against/ in margin.] 

" " Objectiva et adhserens." Jo. Pri- holiness, adherent to it. ] 

deaux, Concio, in S. Luc. xix. 46. 1 Cor. ix. 13. 

[This sermon was preached at the P Psal. xcv. 6. 

consecration of Exeter College chapel. i S, Luc. xxii. 31. 

It was first printed in 1625, and re- r In Antiq. Britannicis, p. 85. [This 

printed in his "Twenty Sermons." passage is given in full by Wharton 

Oxon. 1636. Prideaux s words (p. 24 in the Appendix.] 
of this latter Edition) are, objective 


the place, I find to be true. For after he had in some sort Die Deci- 
commended the popes for taking away some gross and super- mo " te 
stitious purgations, he adds,, that yet for want of piety, or 
prudence, their later Pontifical and Missal-books did outgo 
the ancient in multitudine ceremoniarum, et peragendi difficul- 
tate, et tcedio, et exorcisationis amentia. So these were the 
things he found fault with, not the consecration itself; which 
he could not well do, himself being then a consecrated bishop." 

2. The second witness was Mr. Hope. He says, that he 
agrees with the former witness, and saw all, and the throwing 
up of the dust, &c. Since he agrees with the former witness, 
I give him the same answer. Yet with this observation upon 
him and his oath. The former witness says that at the 
beginning of this action I took dust and threw it up : this 
man agrees with him, and saw all ; and almost in the very 
next words confesses, he was not there at the beginning/ 
Not there : yet he saw it. My Lords, if you mark it, this is 
a wholesome oath. He says, that then the churchyard was 
consecrated by itself/ It was ever so; the one act must 
follow the other, though both done the same day : for the 
places being different, the act could not pass upon them at 
the same time. Then he said, there were fees required, and 
a good eye had to the money/ This is a poor objection 
against me : if the officers did exact any money without rule, 
or beyond precedent, let them answer for it. But for that 
which was said to belong to me, I presently gave it to the 
poor of the parish. And this Mr. Dell, my secretary, then 
present, attested to the Lords. Lastly, he said, they were 
not new churches/ Let him look to his oath again; for tis 
notoriously known, they were both new-built from the ground ; 
and St. Giles not wholly upon the old foundation. 

The third charge was laid on me only by Mr. Nicolas, and III. 
without any witness. It was, that I outwent Popery itself; 
for the Papists consecrated churches only, but I had been so 
ceremonious that I had consecrated chapels too s / My Lords, 
the use of chapels and of churches in regard of God s service 
is the same. Therefore, if consecration be fit for the one, it 

Here in England, both before and time preceding, many of the time 

since the Reformation, chapels newly succeeding the Reformation. H. W. 

erected were always solemnly conse- [Dulwich College Chapel, e.g. by Abp. 

crated, as well as churches. I could Abbot. See Wilkins Cone. torn. iv. 

produce innumerable instances of the pp. 555 scq.J 


Die Deci- must needs be for the other. And the consecrations of 
t10 chapels was long before Popery came into the world. For 
even oratories newly built were consecrated in or before 
Eusebius his time*. And he nourished about the year of 
Christ 310. So ancient they are in the course of Christianity; 
and for any prohibition of them, there is neither law nor 
canon in the State or Church of England that doth it. 

The chapels they instance in are three. 1. First, they 
say, I consecrated a chapel of the Eight Honourable the 
Ld. Treasurer Weston s V I did so, and did no harm therein. 
As for the touch given by the way upon that honourable 342 
person, he is gone to God x , I have nothing to do with it. 
2. Secondly, they instanced in a chapel of Sir John 
Worstenhanr s building y/ Tis true I consecrated that too \ 
but that was a parish church, built in the place where he 
was born, and it was in my diocese, and so the work proper 
for me. 3. The third instance was in my own chapel, in my 
house at Aberguilly z , when I was Bishop of S. David s. The 
room lay waste and out of repair, and I fitted it at my own 
cost, and consecrated it into a chapel, that house having no 
oratory before. 1. Here they further aggravated many cir 
cumstances : as first, that I named it at the dedication the 
Chapel of S. John the Baptist/ I did so name that chapel, 
in memory of the college where I was bred, which bears the 
same name ; but I dedicated it to God and His service. And 
(1 83) to give the names of angels and saints to churches, for 
distinction sake, and for the honour of their memory, is very 
ancient and usual in the Church, as appears in S. Aug. a , and 
divers others of the Fathers ; but dedicated only to God : 
" which, in the midst of superstitious times, the School itself 
confesses b :" so yet no offence. 2. Secondly, that I did it 
upon the 29th of August/ And why might I not do it that 
day, as well as upon any other ? But resolving to name the 
chapel as I did, I the rather made choice of that day, both 
because it was the day of the decollation of S. John the 

1 Euseb. lib. x. Hisfc. c. 3. [pp. 463 z [See Diary, Aug. 28, 1625, ibid. 

465.] p. 171.] 

u [See Diary, May 16, 1632, vol. iii. a [S. Aug. de Civit. Dei, lib. xxii. 

p. 215.] cap. 10. Op., torn. vii. col. 1073. C.] 

x [He died in 1634.] * [S.] Tho. [Aquin. Summ. Theol.] 

y [See Diary, July 17, 1632, vol. iii. 2. 2se. q. Ixxxv. A. 2 ad 3. 
p. 216.1 


Baptist ; and because, as upon that day God had wonderfully Die Deci- 
blessed me, in the hearing of my cause concerning the Presi- m 
dentship of S. John s College in Oxford, by King James of 
ever blessed memory c : so yet no offence. 3. Thirdly, there 
was a paper read, and avowed to be mine, in which was a 
fair description of chapel furniture, and rich plate, and the 
ceremonies in use in that chapel, and wafers for the Commu 
nion/ At the reading of this paper I was a little troubled. 
I knew I was not then so rich as to have such plate, or 
furniture ; and therefore I humbly desired sight of the paper. 
So soon as I saw it, I found there was nothing in it in my 
hand but the indorsement, which told the reader plainly that 
it was the model of reverend Bishop Andrews his chapel, 
with the furniture, plate, ceremonies therein used, and all 
things else. And this copy was sent me by the household 
chaplain to that famous bishop d . " This I laid open to the 
Lords, and it would have made any man ashamed but 
Mr. Pryn, who had delivered upon oath that it was a paper 
of my chapel furniture at Aberguilly, contrary to his con 
science, and his own eyesight of the paper." And for wafers, 
I never either gave or received the Communion, but in ordi 
nary bread. At Westminster I knew it was sometimes used, 
but as a thing indifferent. As for the slur here given to that 
reverend dead Bp. of Winchester, it might well have been 
spared; he deserved far better usage for his service to the 
Church of England and the Protestant cause. 

The fourth charge was the publishing the Book of Recrea- IV. 
tions e : and it was ushered in with this scorn upon me, that 
I laboured to put a badge of holiness, by my breath, upon 
places, and to take it away from days/ But I did neither : 
the King commanded the printing of it, as is therein attested ; 
343 and the warrant which the King gave me, they have l f : and 
1 [ and the warrant . . . they have : in margin.] 

c [See Diary, Aug. 29, 1611, vol. iii. " Charles E. 

p. 135.] " Canterbury, see that our Declara- 

d [This very copy is now preserved tion concerning liecreations on the 

among the Harl. MSS. in Brit. Mus.] Lord s-day after Evening Prayer, be 

e [See the King s Declaration in printed." 

Rushworth s Collections, vol. ii. pp. Prynne accuses the Archbishop of 

193196.] obtaining this warrant without date, 

f [It is thus given by Prynne (Cant. " to justify himself, if questioned for 

Doom, p. 148) : it, upon any future occasion."] 


Die Deoi- though at consecrations I read the prayers, yet it was God s 
tlo< blessing, not my breath, that gave the holiness. And for 
the day, I ever laboured it might be kept holy, but yet free 
from a superstitious holiness. And first, it was said, that 
this was done of purpose to take away preaching. But first, 
there is no proof offered for this. And secondly, tis impos 
sible; for till the afternoon service and sermon were done, 
no recreation is allowed by that book, nor then to any but 
such as have been at both. Therefore it could not be done 
to take it away. Thirdly, the book names none but lawful 
recreations : therefore, if any unlawful be used, the book 
gives them no warrant. And that some are lawful, (after the 
public service of God is ended,) appears by the practice of 
Geneva, where, after evening prayer, the elder men bowl, 
and the younger train. And Calvin says in express terms, 
that one cause of the institution of the Sabbath was, * that 
servants might have a day of rest and remission from their 
labour % : and what time of the day fit, if not after evening 
prayer? and what rest is there for able young men, if they 
may use no recreation ? Then it was urged, that there was 
great riot and disorder at wakes kept on the Ld/s-day/ 
That is a very sufficient cause to regulate and order those 
feasts, but not quite to take them away. I make no doubt 
for my part but that the Feast of the Dedication was abused 
by some among the Jews ; and yet Christ was so far from 
taking it away for that, as that he honoured it with His own 
presence. S. John x. h As for the paper which was read, 
containing (184) three causes why that book was published/ 
that was a note taken for my own private use and memory 1 . 
Then came in Mr. Pryn, who said that the Ld. Chief 

s " Tertio servis, et iis qui sub alio- book set out by Theophilus Brabourne, 

rum degerent imperio, quietis diem 1628, Judaism upon Christian Prin- 

indulgendum censuit, quo aliquam ha- ciples, and perverted many. 3. A 

berent a labore remissionem." Cal. great distemper in Somersetshire, upon 

lib. ii. Inst. c. 8. 28. [Op. torn. ix. the forbidding of the wakes, in the sour- 

p. 99.] ness of this opinion; an Act of the 

h S. John x. 22. judge that rid that circuit, March 15, 

1 [Prynne thus gives it (Cant. 1627, and followed by another, 1630; 

Doom, p. 148) : " The Declaration and his Majesty troubled with peti- 

concerning lawful sports on the Lord s- tions and motions by some chief men 

day, his Majesty commanded me to of that county, on both sides. 4. His 

see it printed. The motives to it royal father s example upon the like 

were : 1. A general and superstitious occasions in Lancashire."] 
opinion conceived of that day. 2. A 


Justice Richardson had made an order in his circuit against Die Deci- 
these wakes, and was forced to revoke it k . This was done by " 
authority, as is before answered ; to which I refer myself 1 . 
Here tis added, to help fill up the noise : but Mr. Pryn 
says, f that all the gentlemen in the country petitioned in 
the judge s behalf/ No : there was a great faction in Somer 
setshire at that time, and Sir Robert Philips and all his 
party writ up against the judge and the order he made, as 
was apparent by the certificates which he returned. And 
Sir Robert was well known in his time to be neither Popish 
nor profane. He says further, that William, then Earl of 
Pembroke, was out of town, and the book printed in the 
interim by my procurement/ But for this last, here s not 
one word of proof offered, and so I leave it. 

The fifth charge was, that some ministers were punished V. 
for not reading this book. Witnesses for this were produced. 

1. The first was Sir Nath. Brent; who says, he had charge 
from me to call for an account of not reading this book, both 
in my province at my visitation, and in my diocese/ His 
Majesty having commanded this, I could do little if I had 
not so much as inquired what was done : and he confesses, 
that for my province he gave time to them which had not 
read it, and then never asked more after it/ So here was 
no eager prosecution. But then he says, ( that three in my 
diocese stood out, and asked time m / And confesses that I 
344 granted it: but adds, that when he asked more time for 
them, I denied ; and that they were then suspended ab qfficio 
only/ I thought I had reason to deny, when I saw they did 
but dally by asking time. And it was then evident that in 
the diocese of other bishops far more than three were 
punished, and their punishment greater. "However, this 
my proceeding was far from rigour. And this was the answer 
that I gave Mr. Brown, who in the sum of his charge 
instanced in this particular against me 1 / 7 

1 [ However, this . . . against me. on opposite page.] 

k [See Sir Thomas Richardson s m [The three persons referred to 

order, in Prynne, Cant. Doom, pp. were Richard Culmer, John Player, of 

131, 132.] Kennington, and Thomas Hieron, of 

1 [See above, p. 133.] Hernhill.] 


Die Deci 2. The second witness was Mr. Culmer u , one of the three 
t10 ministers that was suspended. He says, that he was sus 
pended by Sir Nath. Brent, and that when he came to me 
about it, I said, If you know not how to obey, I know not 
how to grant your petition/ Truly, my Lds., finding him 
both wilful and ignorant, I cannot tell what I could say less. 
He says, that his patron took away his benefice. Why, my 
Lds., he had none ; he was only a curate, and, God knows, 
unfit for that. So being suspended from his office, this must 
needs be done. He says, he was not absolved till the Scots 
came in, and that he was conformable in all things else/ 
For the time of his absolution, I leave that to the record : 
but for his conformity in other things, tis more than ever 
I heard any. " This I can say for him, he is good at pur 
chasing a benefice : for he offered a servant of mine one 
hundred and fifty pounds, so he could procure me but to 
name him to the Parliament for Chartham in Kent. Since, 
I have heard he is as good at doing reverence in the church : 
for he pissed in the body of the cathedral at Canterbury at 
noonday, as will be justified by oath P. And for this very 
particular, the Book of Recreations, he informed at the 
Council-table against a gentleman of quality, for saying it 
was unfit such books should be sent for ministers to read in 
the church^. And was himself laid by the heels for the false 
hood of this information. So he is very good at the point of 
conscience too, that can refuse to read the book, as being unfit, 
and complain to have another punished for saying ; tis so." 

3. The third witness is Mr. Wilson r . He says, that I 
sent to Sir Nath. Brent to suspend him/ That is true, but 
it was when he would neither obey, nor keep in his tongue. 
He says, his living was sequestered for almost four years/ 
But it was not for not reading this book. For himself 

n [See above, p. 17.] upon the whole, think him to have 

This Mr. Culmer not only pissed been one of the greatest villains in 

in the church of Canterbury, but also the three kingdoms. H. W. 

demolished the noble glass windows P Antidotum Culmerianum, p. 11. 

of it with his own hands. The like he 1 Ibid. p. 35. [These passages from 

did in the parish-church of Minster, Antidot. Culmer., are given by Whar- 

in Thanet ; which benefice he usurped ton in the Appendix.] 

during the Kebellion. I have had r [Thomas Wilson, of Otham, at 

more particular opportunities to be this time one of the Assembly of 

informed concerning him from many Divines.] 
yet alive, who knew him well; and 


confesses it was done in the High- Commission; and that Die Deoi- 
for dilapidations, in not repairing his house. 

4. The fourth witness was one Mr. Snelling s , a minister in 
the diocese of Rochester. All that was done against this 
man was openly in the High-Commission Court. And there 
he was censured for other things, as well as for this. Himself 
confesses his open refusing to bow at the name (185) of Jesus, 
though the Canon of the Church command it. I kept him 
off from being sentenced a long time, and when he was 
sentenced he confesses I was not present. He says, some 
what was expunged out of his brief/ If it were, it was with 
the consent of his counsel ; which in that court was ordinary. 
345 Howsoever, it cannot touch me : for those things were done 
at informations, where I was not present. He says, that 
when I heard of the nature of his defence, I said, If any 
such defence were put in, it should be burnt. This was 
upon just complaint of the judge then present at informa 
tions, affirming it was against all the course of that court. 
He says, there is no penalty mentioned in that Declaration. 
And I say, his obedience and other men s should have been 
the more free and cheerful. Well, I pray God keep us in 
the mean, in this business of the Sabbath, as well as in other 
things, that we run not into a Jewish superstition, while we 
seek to shun profaneness. This Calvin hath in the meantime 
assured me, that those men who stand so strictly upon the 
morality of the Sabbath, do by a gross and carnal Sabbatiza- 
tion, three times outgo the superstition of the Jew V 

Here it was inferred, that there was a combination for 
the doing of this in other dioceses/ But no proof at all was 
offered. Then Bp. Montague s Articles, and Bp. Wrenn s 
were read, to show that inquiry was made about the reading 
of this book u . And the Bp. of London s Articles named, but 
not read. But if I were in this combination, why were not 
my Articles read ? Because no such thing appears in them ; 

8 [Lawrence Snelling, Rector of Cal. ii. Inst. c. 8, 34. [Op., torn. ix. 

Paul s Cray, Kent. His case is stated p. 100.] 

in full by Prynne (Cant. Doom, pp. u [See the passages from Bp. Mon- 

151, 152).] tagu s and Bp. Wren s Visitation Ar- 

* " Crassa carnalique Sabbatismi tides, in Prynne, Cant. Doom, p. 153.] 
superstitione ter Judeeos superant."- 


Die Deci- and because my Articles gave so good content, that while the 
t10 Convocation was sitting, Dr. Brownrigg x and Dr. Oldsworth y 
came to me, and desired me to have my book confirmed in 
Convocation, to be general for all bishops in future, it was so 
moderate and according to law. ( But why then, say they, 
were other Articles thought on, and a clause that none 
should pass without the approbation of the Archbp. 2 ? Why, 
other were thought on, because I could not in modesty press 
the confirmation of my own, though solicited to it. And that 
clause was added, till a standing book for all dioceses might 
be perfected, that no qu&re in the interim might be put to 
any, but such as were according to law. 

VI. The sixth charge was about reversing of a decree in 
Chancery/ (as tis said,) about houses in Dr. Walton s a parish, 
given/ as was said, to superstitious uses/ 

1. The first witness was Sergeant Turner. He says, f he 
had a rule in the King s Bench for a prohibition in this 
cause/ But by reason of some defect (what, is not men 
tioned,) he confesses he could not get his prohibition. Here s 
nothing that reflects upon me. And if a prohibition were 
moved for, that could not be personally to me, but to my 
judge in some spiritual court, where it seems this cause 
depended, and to which the decree in Chancery was directed. 
And indeed this act, which they call a reversing/ was the 
act and seal of Sir Nath. Brent my vicar-general. And if 
he violated the Ld. Keeper s decree, he must answer it. But 
the instrument being then produced, it appeared concurrent 
in all things with the decree. The words are, Junta scopum 
decreti hac in parte in curia Cancellaria factum, &c. 

2. The second witness was Mr. Edwards. And wherein 
he concurs with Sergeant Turner, I give him the same answer. 

x [Prebendary of Ely, Master of Wight. An account of his life is pre- 

Catherine Hall, and Archdeacon of fixed to his " Pnelectiones Theologi- 

Coventry. He was made, in 1641, cee," edited by his nephew, Richard 

Bp. of Exeter. See his Life in full Pearson. (Wood, F. 0. i. 375, 376.)] 
in Lloyd s Worthies] z [See Canons of 1640. Canon ix. 

y [Richard Holdsworth, Master of Works, vol. v. p. 627.] 
Emmanuel College, and Rector of St. a [Dr. Brian Walton, Rector of S. 

Peter-le-Poor in London. In 1645 he Martin s Orgar in Cannon Street, 

was nominated to the deanery of the celebrated Editor of the London 

Worcester. He attended the King at Polyglott Bible : afterwards Bishop 

Hampton Court and in the Isle of of Chester.] 


316 For that which he adds, that Dr. Walton did let leases of DieDeci- 
these houses at an undervalue, and called none of the m 
parishioners to it : if he did in this anything contrary to 
justice, or the will of the donor, or the decree, he is living to 
answer for himself ; me it concerns not. For his exception 
taken to my grant (of confirmation I think he means), and 
to the words therein, omnis et omnimoda, &c. ; tis the 
ancient style of such grants, for I know not how many 
hundred years; no syllable innovated or altered by me. 

Then followed the charge of Mr. Burton and Mr. Pryn, VII. 
about their answer, and their not being suffered to put it 
into the Star-Chamber. Which though Mr. Pryn pressed at 
large before b , yet here (186) it must come again, to help fill 
the world with clamour. Yet to that which shall but seem 
new I shall answer. Two things are said. (1.) The one, that 
they were not suffered to put in their defence, modo et forma, 
as it was laid/ There was an order made openly in court to 
the judges, to expunge scandalous matter. And the two 
Chief Justices did order the expunging of all that which was 
expunged, be it more or less : as appears in the Acts of that 
court. (2.) The other is, that I procured this expunging. 
The proofs that I procured it were these : 1. First, because 
Mr. Cockshot gave me an account of the business from 
Mr. Attorney. I had reason to look after the business, the 
whole Church of England being scandalized in that bill, as 
well as myself. But this is no proof that I either gave direc 
tion or used any solicitation to the reverend judges, to whom 
it was referred. 2, Secondly, because I gave the Lords 
thanks for it : it was openly in court : it was after the ex 
punging was agreed unto. And what could I do less in such 
a cause of the Church, though I had not been personally 
concerned in it ? 3. Thirdly, because I had a copy of their 
answer found in my study. I conceive it was not only fit, 
but necessary for me to have one, the nature of the cause 
considered. But who interlined any passages in it with black- 
lead, I know not. For I ever used ink, and no black-lead all 
my life. These be strange proofs that I procured anything. 

Then Mr. Pryn added, that the justice and favour which 
was afforded Dr. Leighton was denied unto him. As far as I 
b [See above, p. 109.] 



Die Deci- remember, it was for the putting in of his answer under his 
own hand. This, if so, was done by order of the court ; it was 
not my act. 

VIII. The last charge followed. And that was taken out of the 
preface to my speech in Star-Chamber. The words are, 
That one way of government is not always either fit or safe, 
when the humours of the people are in a continual change c / 
&c. From whence they inferred, I laboured to reduce all to 
an arbitrary government. But I do humbly conceive, no 
construction can force these words against me for an arbitrary 
government. For the meaning is, and can be no other, for 
sometimes a stricter, and sometimes a remisser holding and 
ordering the reins of government ; yet both according to the 
same laws, by a different use and application of mercy and 
justice to offenders. " And so I answered to Mr. Brown, 
who charged this against me as one of my ill counsels to his 
Majesty. But my answer given is truth. For it is not said, 347 
that there should not be one law for government, but not one 
way in the ordering and execution of that law. And the 
Observator upon my speech (an English author, and well 
enough known, though he pretend tis a translation out of 
Dutch), though he spares nothing that may be but carped at, 
yet to this passage he says, tis a good maxim, and wishes 
the King would follow it V And truly, for my part, I learned 
it of a very wise and able governor, and he a King of England 
too, it was of Hen. VII., of whom the story says, that in the 
difficulties of his time and cause, he used both ways of 
government, severity and clemency, yet both these were still 
within the compass of the law e . He far too wise, and I 
never yet such a fool, as to embrace arbitrary government." 

c My Speech in the Star-Chamber, upon my Speech, p. 78. 
Prsefat. versus finem. [The pages are e Speed in Hen. VII. 16. [p. 731. 

not marked.] Lond. 1614.] 

d Divine and Politic Observations 



THIS day I received a note from the Committee, that they Junii 14, 
intended to proceed next upon the remainder of the seventh, 
and upon the eighth and ninth original articles. Which 
follow in h<ec verba. 

The eighth Article : 

8. That for the better advancing of his traitorous purpose 
and design, he did abuse the great power and trust his 
Majesty reposed in him ; and did intrude upon the places 
of divers great officers, and upon the right of other his 
Majesty s subjects ; whereby he did procure to himself the 
nomination of sundry persons to ecclesiastical dignities, 
promotions and benefices belonging to his Majesty and 
divers of the nobility, clergy and others ; and hath taken 
upon him the commendation of chaplains (187) to the 
King ; by which means, he hath preferred to his Majesty s 
service, and to other great promotions in the Church, such 
as have been Popishly affected, or otherwise unsound and 
corrupt both in doctrine and manners. 

The ninth Article : 

9. He hath for the same traitorous and 1 wicked intent, 
chosen and employed such men to be his Chaplains, whom 
he knew to be notoriously disaffected to the Reformed 
religion, grossly addicted to Popish superstition, and 
erroneous 2 and unsound both in judgment and practice ; 
and to them, or some of them, he hath committed the 
licensing of books to be printed, by which means divers 
false and superstitious books have been published, to the 
great scandal of religion, and to the seducing of many of 
his Majesty s subjects. 

1 [ traitorous and in marg.] 

2 [ erroneous in margin; originally ceremonies, ] 

S 2 



Junii 17, AT the ending of the former day s charge, I was put off 

54 4 j to this day, which held. The first charge was concerning 

Monday. Mr. Damport s leaving his benefice in London, and going 

DieDec i- into Holland V 

1. The first witness for this was Quatermari, a hitter enemy 

of mine ; God forgive him. He speaks, as if he had fled 
from his ministry here for fear of me/ But the second 
witness, Mr. Dukeswell, says, that he went away upon a 
warrant that came to summon him into the High- Commission. 
The truth is, my Lords, and tis well known, and to some of 
his best friends, that I preserved him once before b , and my 
Lord Veer c came and gave me thanks for it. If after this he 
fell into danger again, majus peccatum habet ; I cannot pre 
serve men that will continue in dangerous courses. He says 
further (and in this the other witness agrees with him), l that 
when I heard he was gone into New-England, I should say 
my arm should reach him there/ The words I remember 
not. But for the thing, I cannot think it fit that any plan 
tation should secure any offender against the Church of 
England. And therefore if I did say my arm should reach 
him, or them, so offending, I know no crime in it ; so long as 
my arm reached no man but by the law. 

2. The second witness, Mr. Dukeswell, adds nothing to 
this, but that he says, Sir Maurice Abbot kept him in before. 
For which testimony I thank him. For by this it appears, 
that Mr. Damport was a dangerous factious man, and so 
accounted in my predecessor s time, and it seems prosecuted 
then too ; that his brother, Sir Maurice Abbot, was then fain 
(being then a parishioner of his) to labour hard to keep 
him in. 

The second charge was concerning Nathaniel Wickens, 
a servant of Mr. Pryn s. 

* [John Davenport, Vicar of St. Ste- referred to.] 

phen s, Coleman Street. See Accounts c [Sir Horatio Vere, the celebrated 

of Province for the Year 1633. Works, commander of the English troops in 

vol. v. p. 318.] the Low Countries, created Baron 

b [This agrees with the Arch- Vere of Tilbury, July 25, 1625, died 

bishop s statement in the passage just 1635.] 


1 . The first witness in this cause was William Wickeiis, Die Deci- 
father to Nathaniel. He says, his son was nine weeks in m -<i uarto - 
divers prisons, and for no cause but for that he was Mr. 
Pryn s servant/ But it appears apud Acta, that there were 

many articles of great misdemeanour against him. And after 
wards himself adds, that he knew no cause but his refusing 
to take the oath ex officw* Why, but if he knew that, then 
he knew another cause, beside his being Mr. Pryn s servant. 
Unless he will say all Mr. Pryn s servants refuse that oath, 
and all that refuse that oath are Mr. Pryn s servants. As for 
the sentence which was laid upon him and the imprisonment, 
that was the act of the High-Commission, not mine. Then 
he says, that my hand was first in the warrant for his com 
mitment/ And so it was to be, of course. 

2. The second witness was Sarah Waymaii. She says, 
1 that he refused to take the oath/ Therefore he was not 
committed for being Mr. Pryn s servant. She says, f that 
for refusing the oath, he was threatened he should be taken 
pro confesso : and that when one of the doctors replied, that 

349 could not be done by the order of the court, I should say, 
I would have an order by the next court-day/ Tis manifest 
in the course of that court, that any man may be taken pro 
confesso, that will not take the oath, and answer. Yet seeing 
how that party of men prevailed, and that (188) one doctor s 
doubting might breed more difference, to the great scandal 
and weakening of that court, I publicly acquainted his Majesty 
and the Lords with it. Who were all of opinion, that if such 
refusers might not be taken pro confesso, the whole power of the 
court was shaken. And hereupon his Majesty sent his letter 
under his signet, to command us to uphold the power of the 
court, and to proceed. She says further, f that he desired 
the sight of his Articles, which was denied him/ It was the 
constant and known course of that court, that he might not 
see the Articles till he had taken the oath, which he refused 
to do. 

3. The third witness was one Flower. He agrees about 
the business of taking him pro confesso. But that s answered. 
He adds, that there was nothing laid to his charge, and yet 
confesses that Wickens desired to see the articles that were 
against him. This is a pretty oath. There were articles 


Die Deci- against him which he desired to see, and yet there was 

4. Then was produced his Majesty s letter sent unto us. 
And herein the King requires us by his supreme power eccle 
siastical to proceed, &c. We had been in a fine case, had we 
disobeyed this command. Besides, my Lords, I pray mark 
it ; we are enjoined to proceed by the King s supreme power 
ecclesiastical ; and yet it is here urged against me, that this 
was done to bring in Popery. An excellent new way of 
bringing in Popery by the King s supremacy. Yea, but they 
say, I should not have procured this letter. Why ? I hope 
I may by all lawful ways preserve the honour and just power 
of the court in which I sat. And tis expressed in the letter, 
that no more was done than was agreeable to the laws and 
customs of the realm. And tis known that both an oath, 
and a taking pro confesso in point of refusal, are used both in 
the Star-Chamber, and in the Chancery. 

5. The last witness was Mr. Pryn, who says, that his man 
was not suffered to come to him, during his soreness when 
his ears were cropped. This favour should have been asked 
of the Court of Star-Chamber, not of me. And yet here is 
no proof that I denied him this, but the bare report of him, 
whom lie says he employed. Nor do I remember any man s 

. coming to me about it. 

III. The third charge followed ; it was concerning stopping of 
books from the press, both old and new, and expunging some 
things out of them. 

1. The first instance was about the English Bibles with 
the Geneva notes. The Bibles with those notes were tolerated 
indeed both in Queen Elizabeth s and King James his time ; 
but allowed by authority in neither. And King James said 
plainly, that he thought the Geneva translation was the 
worst, and many of the notes very partial, untrue, seditious, 
and savouring too much of dangerous and traitorous conceits. 
And gave instance d . This passage I then read to the. Lords: 
and withal told them, that now of late these notes were more 
commonly used to ill purposes than formerly, and that that 
was the cause why the High-Commission was more careful 350 
and strict against them than before. 

Confer, at Ham. Court, p. 47. [Lond. 1604.] 


Here Michael Sparks the elder came in as witness, and Die Deci- 
said, he was called into the High-Commission about these m - ( l uarto - 
books : but he confesses, it was not only for them. He says, 
the restraint of those Bibles was for the notes/ But he 
adds, as he supposes/ And his supposal is no proof. Be 
sides, he might have added here also, that the restraint was 
not for the notes only : for by the numerous coming over of 
Bibles, both with and without notes, from Amsterdam, there 
was a great and a just fear conceived, that by little and little, 
printing would quite be carried out of the kingdom. For the 
books which came thence, were better print, better bound, 
better paper, and for all the charges of bringing, sold better 
cheap. And would any man buy a worse Bible dearer, that 
might have a better more cheap ? And to preserve printing 
here at home, as well (189) as the notes, was the cause of 
stricter looking to those Bibles. And this appears by a letter 
of Sir William BoswelPs, his Majesty s agent in the Low 
Coun tries e ; the letter written to me, and now produced against 
me : but makes for me, as I conceive. For therein he sends 
me word of two impressions of the Bible in English, one with 
notes, and the other without : and desires me to take care to 
regulate this business at home. What should I do ? Should 
I sleep upon such advertisements as these, and from such a 
hand? Especially since he sends word also, that Dr. Amyes 
was then printing of a book wholly against the Church of 
England f . So my care was against all underminings, both at 
home and abroad, of the established doctrine and discipline 
of the Church of England, for which I am now like to suffer. 
And I pray God that point of Arminianism, libertas prophe- 
tandi, do not more mischief in short time, than is expressible 
by me. 

2. The second instance was about the new decree of the 

c [Extracts from Sir W. Boswell s the book referred to as being in the 

letter are given by Prynne, Cant. press, was probably Ames s "Fresh 

Doom, p. 181.] Suit against Human Ceremonies in 

f [William Ames, a distinguished God s Worship, or a Triplication upon 

divine among the Puritans, had left Dr. Burgess s Rejoinder for Dr. Mor- 

England about 1611, and became sue- ton," which was published in that 

cessively minister at the Hague, Pro- year. It was an attack on Morton s 

fessor of Divini y at Franeker, and defence of the three ceremonies, the 

preacher to the English congregation surplice, the cross in baptism, and 

at Rotterdam. As Sir William Bos- kneeling at the sacrament. (Biogr. 

well s letter was dated Sept. 30, 1633, Brit.) ] 


Die Deei- Star-Chamber, concerning printing &. Four articles of this 

decree were read, namely, the 1, 2, 18, 24. What these are, 

may be seen in the decree : and as I think that whole decree 

made anno 1637, useful and necessary; so, under your Lps. 

favour, I think those four articles as necessary as any. 

Mr. Waly and Mr. Downes, two stationers, witnesses in 
this particular, say, that they desired some mitigation of 
the decree, and that Judge Bramston said, he could not do it 
without me. I saw my Ld. Chief Justice Bramston here in 
the court but the other day : why was not he examined, but 
these men only, who oppose all regulating of the press, that 
opposes their profit ? And sure that grave judge meant, he 
could not do it alone without the consent of the court. Or 
if he would have me consulted, it was out of his judicious 
care for the peace of this Church, almost pressed to death 
by the liberty of printing h . ( The chief grievance they ex 
pressed against the new licensing of books, was only for 
matter of charges/ But that is provided for in the eighteenth 
article. And Mr. Downes takes a fine oath, which was, that 
he makes no doubt, but that all was done by my direction ; 
and yet adds, that f he cannot say it. So he swears that, 
which himself confesses he cannot say. And manifest it is 
in the preface, that this decree was printed by order of the 
court/ and so by their command sent to the Stationers Hall : 351 
and the end of it was to suppress seditious, schismatical, and 
mutinous books, as appears in the first article. 

3. The third instance was, that I used my power to 
suppress books in Holland/ This was drawn out of a letter 
which John le Mare, one of the prime preachers in Amster 
dam, writ to me ; expressing therein, that since the procla 
mation made by the States, no man durst meddle with 
printing any seditious libels, against either the State or 
Church of England/ Where s the fault ? For this gentleman 
did a very good office to this kingdom and Church, in pro 
curing that proclamation : for till this was done, every dis 
contented spirit could print what he pleased at Amsterdam, 
against either : and if he had any direction from me about it 
(which is not proved), I neither am nor can be sorry for it. 

* [This decree is printed in Rush- pp. 306315 .] 
worth s Collections, vol. iii. Append. h Frigide dictum. W. S. A. C. 


And the fear -which kept men in from printing, proceeded Die Deci- 
from the proclamation of the States, not from any power of mo " (lua 

4. The fourth instance was in c the Book of Martyrs/ But 
that was but named, to credit a base business, an almanac 
made by one Mr. Genebrand i : in which he had left out all 
the saints, Apostles and all ; and put in those which are named 
in Mr. Fox : and yet not all them neither ; for he had left 
out the solemn days, which are in Fox, as Feb. 2, Feb. 25, 
Mar. 25. And Cranmer translated to Mar. 23. 

In this particular, Mr. Genebrand, brother to this almanac- 
maker, witnesseth, that the Queen sent to me about this 
new (190) almanac. If her Majesty did send to me about 
it (as tis probable she would disdain the book), is that any 
crime in me ? Could I prevent her Majesty s sending, who 
could not know so much as that she would send ? He says, 
1 his brother was acquitted in the High-Commission, but 
charged by me that he made a faction in the court. If I 
did say so, surely, my Lords, I saw some practising by him 
in this new-found way. He says, the Papists bought up 
a great number of these almanacs, and burnt them. It 
seems he could not hinder that, nor I neither; unless it shall 
not be lawful for a Papist to buy an almanac. For when 
he hath bought him, he may burn him if he please. 

But since the Book of Martyrs was named, I shall tell 
your Lps. how careful I was of it. It is well known how 
easily abridgements, by their brevity and their cheapness, 
in short time work out the authors themselves. Mr. Young, 
the printer, laboured me earnestly and often for an Abridge 
ment of the Book of Martyrs. But I still withstood it (as my 
secretary here present can testify), upon these two grounds : 
the one, lest it should bring the large book itself into disuse ; 
and the other, lest if any material thing should be left out, 
that should have been charged as done of purpose by me, as 
now I see it is in other books. And I humbly pray your 
Lps., cast your eyes upon the frontispiece of the Book of 
Martyrs, printed an. 1642, since this Parliament began, and 

1 His name was Gellibrand. "VV. S . was published in the name of William 

A. C. [Henry Gellibrand, of Trinity Beale, servant to Gellibrand. (Wood, 

Coll. Oxford, Professor of Astronomy Ath. Ox. vol. ii. pp. 622, 623.) Sec 

in Gresham College. The Almanac also Cant. Doom. p. 182.] 


Die Deci- when I was safe enough from having any hand in the business, 
and there you shall see as dangerous pictures as have been 
charged upon me, or any my chapel windows. 

Upon occasion of Mr. Genebrand s calendar, Mr. Pryn took 
occasion to tell the Lords, that I had made notes upon the 
Calendar in the Missal/ I desired they might be read; 352 
it was thought too tedious. They were nothing but some 
additions of my own reading to the occurrences on some days. 
And because the Calendar in the Missal was open and large, 
I thought fit to write them there. 

5. The fifth instance is in Dr. Pocklinton his censure of 

k , and of Flaccius Illyricus l . And that this book was 

licensed by my chaplain Dr. Bray. And he was censured in 
this honourable House for that and like slips of his m . Then it 
was inferred at the bar, that it must be taken as my act, if 
it were done by my chaplain/ But inferences are 110 sworn 
proof; and, I conceive, no man can by law be punished 
criminally for his servant s fact ; unless there be proof that 
he had a hand in it. Then it was urged, but without any 
proof too, that Dr. Pocklinton was preferred by me V To 
which I shall answer when proof is made : and if I had, tis 
far enough from treason. 

6. The next instance was about the calling in of Thomas 
Beacon s Disputation of the Mass / The witness Mr. Pryn. 
1. He says, the book was licensed, and that a Papist thereupon 
said, Doth my Ld. of Canterbury license such books ? That 
I was informed of these words, and the book called in the 
next day. First, Mr. Pryn is single in this part of the testi 
mony for the words. Secondly, if any Papist did say so, it 
was not in my power to stop his mouth; and they which 
license books, must endure many and various censures, as 

k I believe the name here wanting that before Mr. Fox his Acts and Mo- 
is Mr. Fox the martyrologist. W. S. numents," &c. Pocklington s Altare 
A. C. Christianum, p. 92. edit. 1 ; p. 114. 

1 [The passage referred to is the edit. 2.] 
following : m [Ou March 11, 164f See Rush- 

" This was the holy and justifiable worth s Collections, vol. iv. p. 207.] 
use of these Diptiches, much like the u [Pocklington s preferments were, 

list of persons censured by holy Church, the Kectory of Yelden, the Vicarage of 

called with some reproach of truth Waresley, Prebend of Peterborough, 

and Christian religion, Catalogus Oct. 31, 1623, and Canonry of Windsor, 

Testium Veritatis, collected into one Jan. 5, 16. He was deprived of all 

volume by Flaccius Illyricus, and en- his preferments, Feb. 2, 164^.] 
larged since by others, and as unlike [See the evidence on this head in 

a calendar that I have seen, to wit, Prynne, Cant. Doom, pp.183, 184.] 


the readers of them stand affected. Thirdly, if any Papist Die Deci- 
did so speak, I have reason to think it was to do me a m(w l uarto - 
mischief, as much as in him lay. Fourthly, this is a very 
bold oath; for he swears, that I was informed of these 
words. He was not present to hear it, and then he can have 
it but by hearsay, and no religion teaches him to swear that 
for truth which he doth but hear. Lastly, the book was 
called in, because it was slipped out contrary to the late 
decree for printing. 2. Yea, but Mr. Pryn swears, and so 
doth Michael Sparks the other witness, that the book was 
sent to the printer before the decree/ But first, Sparks his 
oath is uncertain ; for he says Mr. Pryn sent him the book 
before the decree, and then by and by after, says, it was 
about that time. Now the book is somewhat large, so that 
it might be sent him before the decree, (191) and yet not be 
printed till after, and that a good space too. And secondly, 
Mr. Pryn himself confesses, the book was sent when the 
decree was in agitation. 

7. The seventh instance was about Arminianism, as main 
tained by me against the Declarations of both Houses of 
Parliament P, and of King James, concerning Vorstius and 
Bertius ^. First, I have nothing to do to defend Arminianism, 
no man having yet charged me with the abetting any point 
of it. Secondly, King James his declaration is very learned : 
but under favour, he puts a great deal of difference between 
Vorstius and Bertius : and his Majesty s opinion is clear with 
the article of the Church of England, and so expressed by 
himself: and to which I ever consented. And the passage 
in the conference at Hampton-Court was then read to the 
Lords r , and yet for the peace of Christendom, and the 

P [See the Kemonstrance of the brarian at Leyden) was the author of 

House of Commons, June 11, 1628, a treatise on the Apostasy of the 

(Prynne, Hidden Works, pp. 9093,) Saints, censured severely by King 

and the order made by the House of James (p. 357). He joined the Church 

Commons, Jan. 28, 1628 (Cant. Doom, of Rome in 1620, and died in 1629. 

p. 1G3). Laud s answers to these two In the Epist. Eccle*. et Theol. (Bpist. 

declarations are mentioned below, ccxxxi. pp. 386, 387,) there is an 

p. 272.] interesting letter from Grotius to 

i [See King James s Protestatio John Wytenbogard, criticising freely 

Anti-Vorstiana, Works, pp. 351 seq. some passages in Bertius s History of 

Lond. 1619. King James was so the Pelagians, inserted in his Answer 

strongly opposed to Vorstius that he to Piscator, and predicting for the 

threatened to break off all inter- book an unfavourable reception in 

course with the States, unless they England.! 

banished him, which was accordingly r Confer, at Ham. Court, pp. 29, 30. 
done. Bertius (a Professor and Li- 


Die Deci- strengthening of the reformed religion, I do heartily wish 
r * these differences were not pursued with such heat and animo 
sity, in regard that all the Lutheran Protestants are of the 
very same opinions, or with very little difference from those 353 
which are now called Arminianism. 

And here comes in Michael Sparks ; who says, f he was 
called into the High-Commission about a book of Bishop 
Carleton s 9 . I cannot punctually remember all particulars 
so long since. But he confesses the business was in the 
High-Commission. And so not singly chargeable against 
me. Besides, he is single in this business. He says, he 
was eleven years in the High-Commission, and never sen 
tenced. " This is more than I know. But if it be so, he 
had better luck than some honester men. For a bitterer 
enemy, to his power, the Church-government never had." 
He was Mr. Pryii s printer. He says, I was a Dean then, 
and he thinks of Hereford. I was never Dean of Hereford. 
But howsoever, this is a dangerous oath ; let him think of it. 
He swears that I was a Dean then; and a High- Commis 
sioner ; or else what had I to do in the business ? Now it 
is well known I was never a High-Commissioner, till I had 
been a Bishop some years *. For the book itself, Sparks says 
nothing what was the argument of it : but (so far as I 
remember) it was expressly against the King s Declaration. 
lf And so I answered Mr. Brown, when he summed up the 
evidence against me in the House of Commons. And though 
in his reply he seemed to deny this, yet I remember no proof 
he brought for it." 

8. The last instance was pregnant, and brought forth 
many particulars. 1. As first, Dr. Featly s Parallels, against 
Bishop Mountague V But this was still-born ; at least it says 

s [George Carleton, elected Bp. of on the High Commission. His name 
Llandaflf Dec. 23, 1617, and translated appeared in the Commission issued 
to Chichester Sept. 8, 1619. He was on the 21st of Jan. following. (Rymer, 
one of the English Divines who at- Feed. VII. iv. 172.)] 
tended the Synod of Dort. The Book u [The title of the book is, Telagius 
referred to is, An Examination of those rcdivivus, or Pelagius raked out of 
things wherein the Author of the late the ashes by Arminius and his Scho- 
Appeal holdeth the Doctrine of the lars. Lond. 1626. Wood (Ath. Ox. 
Pelagians and Arminians to be the iii. 161) describes the book as consist- 
Doctrines of the Church of England. ing of two parallels, one between the 
Lond. 1626. Wood (Ath. Ox. ii. 424) Pelagians and Arminians, the other 
mentions a second edition in 1636.] between the Church of Rome, the 

4 [Laud wrote to Buckingham, Appcaler, and the Church of England.] 
Nov. 18, 1624, requesting to be put 


nothing of me. 2. Secondly, Mr. Pryn s Perpetuity v , and Die Deci- 
against Dr. Cosens x , both burnt/ But he doth not say abso- mo ( l uarto - 
lutely burnt, but as he is informed, and he may be informed 
amiss. And howsoever he says, it was done by the High- 
Commission, not by me/ 3. Thirdly, some sheets of Dr. 
Succliffs book> r prohibited the Press at Oxford. I hope 
Oxford is able to give an account for itself. And whereas it 
was here said at the bar : They hoped I would show some 
repressing of the contrary part : I would satisfy their hopes 
abundantly, could I bring witnesses from Oxford, how even 
and steady a hand I carried to both parts z . 4. Fourthly, 
Mr. Burton questioned about his book called The Seven 
Vials a / But himself confesses, that upon Sir Henr. Martin s 
information, that, as that cause was laid, the High-Commis 
sion had no power in it, he was dismissed. 5. Fifthly, that 
about his book, intituled, Babel no Bethel b , he was questioned 
at a court out of term/ This was very usual, whensoever 
the court was full of business, to hold one court-day out of 
term. This is warranted by the Commission. And warning 
of it was always publicly given the court- day before, that all 
whom it concerned might take notice of it, and provide 
themselves. 6. Sixthly, he says, he was there railed at 
by Bp. Harsnet/ Tis more than I know that Bishop 
Harsnet railed at him; but if he did, I hope I am not 
brought hither to answer all men s faults. 7. Seventhly, he 
(192) says, he claimed the Petition of Right, yet was com 
mitted/ This is more than I know or believe; yet if it 
were so, it was done by the High -Commission Court, not by 
me. 8. He says next, that he could never be quiet/ But I 
am sure, my Lords, the Church for divers years could never 
be in quiet, for him, and his associates. 9. Lastly, they say, 

v [The title of the book is, The [See Hist, of Chancellorship, 

Perpetuity of a regenerate Man s Works, vol. v. pp. 186 268.] 

Estate, against the Saints total and a [The title of the book is, * The 

final Apostasy. Lond. 1627. This Seven Vials, or an Exposition of the 

appears to have been the first of 15th and 16th chapters of the Revela- 

Prynne s voluminous publications.] tions. Lond. 1628. ] 

* [The title of the book is, < A Brief b [The title of the book is, Babel 

Survey and Censure of Mr. Cozens his no Bethel ; i. e. the Church of Eome 

couzening Devotions. Lond. 1628. ] no true visible Church of Christ; 

y [The writer was Dr. Matthew being an answer to Hugh Cholmely s 

Sutcliffe, Dean of Exeter. No book Challenge, and Robert Butterfield s 

printed by Sutcliffe, at Oxford, at this Maschil. ] 
date, appears in the Bodl. Cat.] 


Die deci- some passages against Arminianism were left out of two 354 
mo-quarto. letterSj one of Bp D ave nant s, and the other of Bp. Hall s, 
sent to be printed c . > First, here is no proof at all offered, 
that I differed in anything from the doctrine expressed in 
those letters. And secondly, for the leaving out of those 
passages, it was (it seems) done to avoid kindling of new 
flames in the Church of England. And it appeared on the 
other side of the paper, which was produced against me, and 
so read to the Lords ; that these passages were left out by 
the express order from those Bps. themselves, under Bp. 
Hall s own hand, and with thanks to Dr. Turner d , then my 
chaplain, for his letter to them. And here this day s busi 
ness ended. And I received command to attend again the 
twentieth of the same month. 

c [The passages erased are found d [Thomas Turner (son of Thomas 

in Prynne s Cant. Doom, pp. 165, 166. Turner, Alderman, and thrice Mayor of 

The letters, of which these omitted Beading), of S.John s College, Oxford, 

passages originally formed a part, are He was, at an early age, taken under 

in Bp. Hall s Works, vol. ix. pp.319 Laud s patronage ; appointed Preb. of 

321, Lond. 1808, at the beginning of Newington in 8. Paul s Church, April 

his Reconciler; and with the ex- 14, 1629, and Chancellor of S. Paul s, 

ception of a small portion in Bp. Oct. 29 following; Dean of Rochester, 

Hall s letter (where part of the pas- and Dean of Canterbury 1643. After 

sage which Prynne says was omitted, is having suffered severely during the 

inserted, and which may arise from an Rebellion, he was restored to his 

error on his part), the letters are still preferments. He married Margaret, 

printed as Abp. Laud left them ; so daughter of Sir Francis Windebank ; 

far bearing out the statement in the by whom he had, among other sons, 

text. Language sufficiently strong Francis Turner, the non-juring Bishop 

against Rome, was permitted to re- of Ely (Wood, F. 0. i. 472).] 
main in Bp. Davenant s letter.] 




Tins day I came again to the House. A day or two before. Junii 20, 

1 R 4 A. 

as now also, the landing place at Westminster was not so r rhur sday< 
full of people ; and they which were there, much more civil Die Deci- 
towards me than formerly. My friends were willing to per 
suade me, that my answer had much abated the edge of the 
people, saving from the violent and factious leaders of the 
multitude, whom it seems nothing would satisfy but my life 
(for so I was after told in plain terms, by a man deeply 
interested in them) ; when I presently saw Quaterman 
coming towards me, who, so soon as he came, fell to his 
wonted railing, and asked aloud, what the Lords meant, to 
be troubled so long and so often, with such a base fellow as 
I was ; they should do well to hang me out of the way/ I 
heard the words with grief enough, and so left them and him 
in the hands of God. My servants were earnest to have me 
complain to the Lords. I remembered my late complaint 
about the pamphlets had no redress; and so forbare it. 
They notwithstanding, out of their zeal, complained to Mr. 
Lieutenant of the Tower; who presently went forth, and 
said he would school him. But I hearkened no more 
after it. 

When I came to the bar, Mr. Nicolas began with great 
violence, and told the Lords, the business grew higher and 
higher against me/ What the business did, will after appear ; 
but I am sure he grew higher and higher, and from this time 
forward, besides the violence of expression, gave me such 
language, as no Christian would give a Jew. But God, I 
humbly thank Him, blessed me with patience ; and so I 
made my ears obedient. That which made him say the 
business grew higher and higher/ was this. Upon my often 
calling to have the oaths at the coronation of King James 


Die Deci- and King Charles compared, some of them repaired again to 
1 " my study at Lambeth, to search for all such copies of Coro 
nation-books as could there be found 11 . In this diligent and 355 
curious search (" for Mr. Pryn s malice made it ") they found 
some papers concerning Parliaments, no other (I praise God 
for it) than such, as with indifferent construction might 
(I hope) well pass, especially considering what occasion led 
me, and what command was upon me. And as I have been 
told by able and experienced men, they wou d have been 
nothing, had they been found in any, but this troublesome 
and distracted time about the rights of Parliaments, (as tis 
said). Howsoever, I was most unfortunate they should be 
now found, and I had not left (193) them a being, but that 
I verily thought I had destroyed them long since. But 
they were unhappily found among the heaps of my papers. 
And so 

I. An Answer to the Remonstrance b made June 17, 1628, 
(which is sixteen years since,) was made the first charge 
against me. 

II. And the second charge was, a paper concerning a Decla 
ration , Jan. 28, 1628. To both which I then answered; 
but because these are urged more than once, to help fill the 
people with new clamour; and because they are more closely 
pressed against me at the last day of my hearing; and 
because Mr. Brown in his summary charge, laid and charged 
all these papers together ; to avoid tedious repetition, I will 
also make my whole and entire answer together, when that 
time comes. 

III. The third charge of this day was, a letter of a Jesuit to 
his superior, found in my study, dated Mar. 1628 <V Let 
the letter be dated when it will, I hope the Archbp. may 
get and keep the letters of any Jesuits or others. How shall 
I be able to know or prevent their plots upon the religion by 
law established, if this may not be done ? Yet this I desire 
all men to take notice of, that this letter was not directed to 
me. I was then Bp. of London : the letter was found in a 
search. But when by all possible care taken by the High- 

a [See above, p. 212.] Prynne, in Hidden Works, pp. 89, 90, 

b [This will be printed in vol. vi.] and in part in Cant. Doom, pp. 1 59, 

c [This will be printed in vol. vi.] 160 ] 
d [This letter is given in full by 


Commission the author could not be found l , I had (as I Die Deci- 
humbly conceive) great reason to keep it. And I then hum- m - f l umto - 
bly desired the whole letter might be read. There was in 
it, that Arminianism (as twas urged) was their drug,, and 
their plot against us/ &c. The Jesuit seeing a fire kindling 
about these opinions, might write what he pleased to help on 
his cause. Yet this drug, which he says is theirs, is the 
received opinion of all the Lutherans, and they too learned 
Protestants to use their drugs. And if it be their drug, why 
do the Dominicans so condemn it ? Nay, why doth the 
Master of the Sentences and the School after him, for the 
most, determine rigidly against it ? And whereas tis said, 
that these men had instruments at the Duke s chamber 
door : that belongs not to me, I was not porter there. As 
for that power which I had, (called by Mr. Nicolas the com- 
.mand of ids ear,) I used it as much as I could to shut such 
instruments thence. Beside, tis barely said, no proof at all 
offered, that such instruments were about the Duke s cham 
ber-door. Other papers were found in my study, above sixty 
at the least, expressing my continued labours for some years 
together, to reconcile the divided Protestants in Germany, 
that so they might go with united forces against the Romanists. 
" Why are riot these produced too ? Would not Christianity 
and justice have my innocence cleared, as well as my faults 
accused ?" 

356 The fourth charge was Bp. Mountague s preferment. The IV. 
Parliament, they say, c called him in question, and the King 
called in his book ; yet, in affront to the Parliament, that he 
was preferred by me. No : it was then publicly known in 
court (whether now remembered or no, I cannot tell) that 
he was preferred by my Lord Duke ; but being a Church 
business, the King commanded me to signify his pleasure to 
the Signet office. And the docket (which, is all the proof 
here made) mentions him only by whom the King s pleasure 
is signified, not him that procures the preferment. So the 
docket in this case no proof at all. 

The fifth charge was a paper intituled, Considerations for V, 
the Church c . Three exceptions against them. The obseiva- 

1 [ But when . . . found, in margin.] 

e [See Prvnne s Cant. Doom, p. 287.] 

LAUD. V(>L. IV. T 


Die Deci- tion of the King s Declaration, art. 3 ; the Lecturers, art. 

mo-quinto. 5 . and the High-Commission and Prohibitions, art. 10, 
11. The paper I desired might be all read. Nothing in 
them against either law or religion. And for Lecturers a 
better care taken, and with more ease to the people, and 
more peace to the Church *, by a combination of conformable 
neighbouring ministers, in their turns, and not by some 
one humorous man, who too often misleads the people. 
Secondly, my copy of Considerations f came from Archbp. 
Harsnet, in which was some sour expression concerning 
Emmanuel and Sidney Colleges in Cambridge, which the 
King in (194) his wisdom thought fit to leave out. The King s 
instructions upon these Considerations, are under Mr. Baker s 
hand, who was secretary to my predecessor %. And they were 
sent to me to make exceptions to them, if I knew any, in 
regard of the ministers of London, whereof I was then Bp. 
And by this, that they were thus sent unto me by my pre 
decessor, tis manifest, that this account from the several 
dioceses to the Archbishop, and from him to his Majesty 
once a-year, was begun before my time. Howsoever, if it 
had not, I should have been glad of the honour of it, had it 
begun in mine. For I humbly conceive, there cannot be a 
better or a safer way to preserve truth and peace in the 
Church, than that once a year every bishop should give aii 
account of all greater occurrences in the Church to his 
metropolitan, and he to the King. Without which, the 
King, who is the supreme, is like to be a great stranger to 
all Church proceedings. 

VI. The sixth charge was about Dr. Sibthorp s Sermon, that 
my predecessor opposed the printing of it, and that I opposed 
him to affront the Parliament 11 . Nothing so, my Lords. 
Nothing done by me to oppose, or affront, the one or the 
other. This sermon came forth when the loan was not yet 
settled in Parliament. The Lords, and the Judges, and the 
Bishops, were some for, some against it. And if my judg- 

1 [ and more . . . Church, in margin.] 

f I suppose these Considerations h [See Abp. Abbot s account of this 

are those published in Fryn s Compl. business, in Kushworth s Collections, 

Hist. p. 287. W. S. A. C. vol. i. pp. 436 seq.] 

* [See Laud s Works, vol. v. p. 307.] 


ment were erroneous in that point, it was misled by lords of Die Deci- 
great honour and experience, and by judges of great know- m - ( l umto - 
ledge in the law. But I did nothing to affront any. Tis 
said, that I inserted into the sermon, that the people may 
not refuse any tax that is not unjustly laid/ I conceive 
nothing is justly laid in that kind but according to law; 
God s and man s. And I dare not say, the people may refuse 
anything so laid. For jus Regis, the right of a King, (which 
is urged against me too,) I never went further than the Scrip- 
357 tures lead me ; nor did I ever think, that jus Regis, men 
tioned 1 Sam. viii. 1 , is meant of the ordinary and just right of 
kings, but of that power which, such as Saul would be, would 
assume unto themselves, and make it right by power l . 

Then they say, I expunged some things out of it k . As 
first, f the Sabbath/ and put instead of it the Lord s-day/ 
What s my offence ? * Sabbath is the Jews word, and the 
f Lord s-day the Christians . Secondly, about evil coun 
sellors to be used as Haman. The passage (as there ex 
pressed) was very scandalous, and without just cause, upon 
the Lords of the Council. And they might justly have 
thought I had wanted discretion, should I have left it in. 
Thirdly, that I expunged this, that Popery is against the 
first and the second commandment/ If I did it, it was 
because it is much doubted by learned men whether any 
thing in Popery is against the first commandment, or denies 
the unity of the Godhead. And Mr. Perkins (who charges 
very home against Popery) lays not the breach of the first 
commandment upon them *. te And when I gave Mr. Brown 
this answer, in his last reply, he asked why I left out 
both? Why, I did it because its being against the second 
is common and obvious, and I did not think it worthy the 
standing in such a sermon, when it could not be made good 
against the first." 

But they demanded, why I should make any animadvert 
sions at all upon the sermon? It was thus. The sermon 

1 [ further than .... power. on the opposite page. The Archbishop had 
originally written something different, which he erased.] 

5 1 Sam. viii. 12. Doom, p. 245.] 

k [The passages said to have been Perkins, Opera, fol. p. 34. [torn, i, 
expunged are given in Prynne s Cant. Cambr. 1608.] 

T 2 


Die Deci- being presented to his Majesty, and the argument not com- 
mo-qmnto. moj ^ ^ committed the care of printing it to Bishop Mountain, 
the Bp. of London, and four other; of which I was one. 
And this was the reason of the e animadversions now called 
mine. As also of the answer to my predecessor s exceptions, 
(now charged also) and called mine. But it was the joint 
answer of the Committee. And so is that other particular 
also, in which the whole business is left to the learned in 
the laws/ For though the animadversions be in my hand, 
vet they were done at and by the Committee, only I being 
puny Bishop, was put to write them in my hand. 
VII. The seventh charge was Dr. Manwaring s business and 
preferment/ It was handled before m , only resumed here to 
make a noise, and (195) so passed it over. 

VIII. The eighth charge was concerning some alterations in the 
prayers made for the fifth of November 11 , and in the book for 
the Fast, which was published an. 1636 , and the prayers 
on Coronation- day/ 

1. First for the Fast-book: the prayer mentioned was 
altered, as is expressed ; but it was by him that had the 
ordering of that book to the press, not by me. Yet I cannot 
but approve the reason given for it, and that without any the 
least approbation of merit/ For the abuse of fasting, by 
thinking it meritorious, is the thing left out ; whereas in 
this age and kingdom, when, and where, set fastings of the 
Church are cried down, there can be little fear of that erro 
neous opinion of placing any merit in fasting. 

2. Secondly, for the prayers published for the fifth of 
November, and Coronation- day/ The alterations were made 
either by the King himself, or some about him, when I was 
not in court. And the books sent me with a command for 
the printing, as there altered. I made stay, till I might 
wait upon his Majesty. I found him resolved upon the 358 
alterations; nor in my judgment could I justly except against 
them. His Majesty then gave warrant to the books them 
selves with the alterations in them, and so by his warrant 

I commanded the printing. And I then showed both the 
books to the Lords, who viewed them, and acknowledged his 

m [See above; p. 83.] [Ibid. pp. 249, 250.] 

B [See Prynne s Cant. Doom, p. 246.] 


Majesty s hand, with which, not his name only, but the whole Die Deci-. 
warrant was written P. mo-quinto. 

And here I humbly desired three things might be observed, 
and I still desire it. First, with what conscience this passage 
out of my speech in the Star-Chamber 1 was urged against 
me (for so it was, and fiercely by Mr. Nicolas) to prove that 
I had altered the oath at the King s Coronation/ because 
the prayers appointed for the anniversary of the Coronation 
were altered. tf Which is absolute nonsense." Secondly, he 
charged me that the word Antichristian was left out/ But 
that is visibly untrue, for it is left in. Thirdly, that though 
it be in, ( yet that the alteration takes it off from the Papist, 
as also their rebellion/ Neither: for the change is this, 
that Antichristian sect/ altered into the Antichristian sect 
of them which/ &c.; and, whose religion is rebellion/ altered 
into, who turn religion into rebellion/ By which it is mani 
fest that the alteration takes off neither imputation from the 
Papist, but moderates both. And for aught I yet know, tis 
necessary it should. For if their religion be rebellion, see 
what it will produce. Is not this the syllogism ? The religion 
of the Papist is rebellion : but Christianity is the religion 
of the Papist : therefore Christianity is rebellion. I may not 
enlarge ; but you may see more, if you please, in my speech 
in the Star-Chamber r . " And when Mr. Brown in the sum 
of his charge pressed these alterations hard against me, he 
did not so much as mention, that I had the King s both 
warrant and command to all that I did in that particular : 
and besides, urged this as a great innovation, because the 
prayers mentioned had continued unaltered for the space of 
above thirty years. Not remembering therewhile, that the 
Liturgy of the Church established by Act of Parliament, 
must be taken away, or altered, though it hath continued 
above fourscore. Nay, and Episcopacy must be quite abo 
lished, though it have continued in the Church of Christ 
above sixteen hundred." 

The ninth charge was from Sir Edward Hungerford, who IX, 
came to Lambeth to have a little book licensed to the press, 

i [See Abp. Laud s Speech in the P. 32. [p. 75 in marg.] 
Star-Chamber, p. 34. Edit. 1637; and * P. 36. [p. 76 in marg.] 
p. 75 in marg. in this reprint.] 


Die Deci- The author was Sir Anthony Hungerford s , whether Sir EcU 
* ward s grandfather or his uncle, I remember not the relation. 
He says, he came to my chaplain, Dr. Bray, to license it. 
And, that Dr. Bray told him there were some harsh phrases 
in it, which were better left out, because we were upon a way 
of winning the Papists/ First, I hope I shall not be made 
answerable for my chaplain s words too. And secondly, I 
hope there is no harm in winning the Papists to the Church 
of England : especially if so easy a cure, as avoiding harsh 
language, would do it. He says, my chaplain expressed a 
dislike of Guicciardin s censure of Pope Alexander the Sixth. 
Sure if the censure be false, he had reason to except against 
it; if true, yet to publish such an unsavoury busi(196)ness 
to the common people 1 He says, he came and com 
plained to me, and that I told him I was not at leisure, but 
left it to my chaplain/ So the charge upon me was, that 359 
my chaplain was in an error concerning this book, and I 
would not redress it. To this I answered : First, that my 
chaplain was dead, and I not knowing the reasons which 
moved him to refuse licensing this book, can neither confess 
him to be in an error, nor yet justify him. Secondly, for 
my own refusing to meddle with it, Sir Edward took me in 
a time of business, when I could not attend it. Thirdly, if 
I had absolutely refused it, and left it to my chaplain, I had 
done no more than all my predecessors did before me. And 
Dr. Featly then witnessed to the Lords, that Archbp. Abbot, 
my immediate predecessor, and to whom the Doctor was 
household chaplain, would never meddle with licensing books, 
but ever referred them to his chaplains : and Dr. Mocket, 
another of his chaplains, (well known to Dr. Featly,) suffered 

1 [Wharton printed this passage with marks of omission, as though the 
Archbishop meant to add more; but there is no trace of this in the MS. 
Abp. Bancroft here notes, Imperfect period, or an Aposiopesis. ] 

8 [Sir Anthony Hungerford was taken to be licensed in 16 35; and 

originally brought up as a Romanist, on the Chaplain refusing to license it, 

but changed his religion in 1588. was printed at Oxford in 1639. The 

About 1607 he wrote the book men- passages which were objected to by 

tioned in the text. It was entitled, the licenser are given by Prynne (Cant. 

" The Advice of a Son professing the Doom, pp. 252254). Sir Edward 

Religion established in the present Hungerford was the son, not nephew, 

Church of England, to his dear Mother or grandson, of Sir Anthony.] 
a Eoman Catholic." This book was 


for a book sharply * ; yet not one word said to my predecessor Die Deci- 
about it. Fourthly, as the liberty of the press is in England, m -<l uinto - 
and of the books which are tendered to the press l , the Arch 
bishop had better grind, than take that work to his own 
hands, especially considering his many and necessary avoca 
tions. Lastly, no man ever complained to me in this kind, 
but this gentleman only. So it is one only single offence, 
if it be any. " But how this or the rest should be treason 
against Sir Ed. Hungerford, I cannot yet see. And so I 
answered Mr. Brown ; who in his summary charge forgot not 
this : but Mr. Nicolas laid load upon me in his reply, in such 
language as I am willing to forget." 

The tenth charge was out of a paper of Considerations to X. 
Dr. Potter, about some few passages in his answer to a book 
intituled, Charity mistaken V The business this. Dr. Potter 
writ to me for my advice : I used not to be peremptory ; but 
put some few things back to his further consideration. Of 
which, three were now charged upon me. 1. The first was, he 
used this phrase, believe in the Pope/ I desired him to 
consider of c m. And in this I yet know not wherein I 
offend. 2. The second was this phrase, the idol of Rome/ 
I advised him to consider this phrase too, that men might 
not be to seek what that idol was. " And here Mr. Nicolas 
cried out with vehemeiicy, e that every boy in the street could 
tell the Pope was the idol. I had not Dr. Potter s book now 
at hand; and so could not be certain in what sense the 
Doctor used it ; but else, as many, at least, think the Mass 
the idol of Rome, as the Pope : unless Mr. Nicolas his boys 
in the streets think otherwise, and then I cannot blame him 
for following such mature judgments." 3. The third was, that 
I bid him consider whether the passage, p. 27/ (as I remem- 

1 [ and of ... the press/ in margin.] 

1 [Richard Mocket published, in u [This book was written by Ed- 

1616, the Book of Common Prayer, ward Knott, the Jesuit, to which Potter 

Thirty-nine Articles, &c., in Latin, put forth a reply in 1633, entitled, 

omitting the first clause of the 20th Want of Charity justly charged, &c. 

Article. The book was, probably on He was preparing a second edition 

this account, sentenced to be burnt, (which appeared in 1634), for which 

which so weighed on his spirits that purpose he consulted the Archbishop 

he died soon afterwards. (Wood, Ath. on several points, which are mentioned 

Ox. vol. ii. p. 232, and Heylin s Cypr. in Prynne sCant. Doom, pp. 251, 252.] 
Angl. p. 70.)] 


Die Deci- ber,) did not give as much power to the Parliament in matter 
mo-quinto. of Doctrine, as the Church. " But my answer to this I shall 
put off to the charge against me concerning Parliaments, 
because there Mr. Brown began with this. The two former 
he charged also, and I answered them as before. But he 
omitted, that I obtained of the Lords the reading of Dr. 
Potter s letter to me, by which he drew from me those things 
which I determined not, but only put to his second thoughts 
and consideration. In which way (I humbly conceive) I 
cannot be in crime, though I were in error. Here ended 
the business of this day, and I was ordered to attend again 
June 27. 




THIS day I appeared again. a ; and the first charge laid against Junii 27, 
me, was my chaplain Dr. Bray s expungings out of Dr. Thursday. 
Featly s Sermons/ The same charge ad verbum which was Die Veci- 
before b , and I give it the same answer. These repetitions of j 
the same things being only to increase clamour, and to fill 
more men s ears with it. 

(197) The second charge was certain expunctions of some II. 
things against the Papists in Dr. Clark s Sermons / The 
witness which swore to the passages left out, was one Mr. 
White, a minister d , and it seems some near acquaintance 
of Dr. Clark s. But first, this witness is single. Secondly, 
he brought only a paper, in which he had written down what 
was expunged ; but Dr. Clark s Sermons he brought not with 
it : so tis not impossible he might be mistaken : howsoever, 
I not having the book, could not possibly make an absolute 
and a perfect answer. Thirdly, this witness confesses, that 
Dr. Weeks, then chaplain to my Ld. of London, had the view 
of Dr. Clark s Sermons, and took exceptions against some 
passages, as well as my chaplain, Dr. Haywood, did. So it 

a [The following entry in the Lords l> [See above, p. 241.] 

Journals, refers to a point not noticed c [Dr. Richard Clerke was a Fellow 

by the Archbishop : of Christ s Coll. Cambridge. He was 

" Die Jovis, viz. 27 die Junii. one of the translators of the Bible, 

" The Committee of the House of being entrusted, together with Dr. Sa- 

Commons began to press the evidence ravia, with the portion from the Pen- 

of the Service Book of Scotland. tateuch to the Book of Chronicles. 

" The Archbishop desired his coun- He was one of the six Preachers of 
scl might be heard before this be Canterbury. His Sermons were pub- 
given in evidence, because of his plea. lished after his death, in 1637. A list 

" Hereupon they withdrew ; and the of the passages expunged from these 

House taking this into consideration, Sermons is given by Prynne, Cant, 

the House thought it fit that the evi- Doom, pp. 257, 258, 261268, 270, 

dence of this particular should be 271.] 

reserved to the House of Commons d [This was Charles White, one of 

until they come to the thirteenth the six Preachers of Canterbury, who 

article ; and then they should be heard wrote the Preface to Dr. Clerke s 

on both sides, concerning this parti- Sermons.] 
cular and the thirteenth article."] 


Die Deci- seems there was cause for it. Fourthly, I answer, that for 
mo-sexto. tn ^ an( j Qr R JJ other of like nature, iny chaplain must 
answer for his own act, and not I. He is living, and an able 
man j_ I humbly desire he may be called to his account. 
For tis not possible for me to tell your Lps. upon what 
grounds he did expunge these many and different passages, 
which are instanced against me. Lastly, in all the passages 
of Dr. Clark s Sermons, it is not anywhere distinguished, 
which were expunged by my chaplain, and which by Dr. 
Weeks : so that the charge in that behalf is left very un 

For the passages themselves, as they are many, so they 
are such as may easily be mistaken, the most of them. And 
whether Dr. Clark handled them in such manner as was not 
justifiable, either against Arminius or the Papists, cannot 
possibly be known, till each place in the book be examined 
for the thing/ and my chaplain, Dr. Hay wood, for the mean 
ing/ " This made a great noise in Mr. Brown s summary 
charge against me, he alleging, that two and twenty passages 
about points of Popery were dashed out of Dr. Clark s Ser 
mons. To which. I answered, that I conceived my chaplain 
would be able to make it good, there were two hundred left 
in for two and twenty left out. And that they which were 
left out, were not some way or other justifiable against the 
Papists, as set down and expressed by him. And if so, they 
are better out than in. For we gain nothing by urging that 
against the Papists, which, when it comes to the touch, 
cannot be made good against them." 

One passage is here added out of Dr. Featly s Sermons, 361 
p. 225 e , where he inveighs against too much embellishing 
and beautifying the church, and not the souls of men, &c. 
First, if there be not a care to beautify the soul, let men 
profess what religion they will, tis a just exception, and I 
believe no fault found with that. But, secondly, for the over 
much beautifying of the church, tis a point that might well 
be left out. Little necessity, God knows, to preach or print 
against too much adorning of churches among us, where yet 
so many churches lie very nastily in many places of the king 
dom, and no one too much adorned to be found. Nay, the 
< [Featley s Clavis Mystica, Serin, xvii. p. 225. J 


very consecration of churches cried down (as is before ex- Die Deci- 
pressed). And this opinion, that no place is holy but during m 
the service in it/ made Mr. Culmer, though a minister, to piss 
in the cathedral church of Canterbury : and divers others to 
do so, and more, against the pillars in S. Paul s nearer hand, 
as may daily be both seen and smelt, to the shame of that 
which is called religion. " Here Mr. Nicolas would fain have 
shovelled it to the outside of the church (which had been bad 
enough), but it was the inside I spake of, and the thing is 

Then an instance was made in a book of Dr. Jones f . The 
witness that anything was expunged out of this, was only 
Mr. Chetwin. And he confesses that this book was licensed 
by Dr. Baker %, and he my Ld. of London s chaplain, not 
mine. Here my friends at the bar infer that Dr. Baker was 
preferred by me. First, that s not so; he was preferred by 
his own lord. Secondly, if he had been preferred by me, it 
could have made no charge, unless proof had been made that 
I preferred him for abusing Dr. Jones his book, And for 
the s docket/ which is the only proof offered that I preferred 
him, I have already showed, that that is no proof. Yea, but 
they say, ( Dr. Baker was employed by me as one (198) of my 
visitors. And what then ? Must I be answerable for every 
fault that is committed by every man that I employ in my 
visitation, though it be a fault committed at another time 
and place, though I humbly desire Dr. Baker may answer for 
himself, before I acknowledge any fault committed by him ? 
" And though I conceive this answer abundantly satisfactory 
for anything that may concern me, yet Mr. Brown omitted 
not this instance against me V 

1 [ And though . . . against me. on opposite page.] 

[Dr. William Jones, of East Berg- Christopher-le-Stock, S. Mary-at-Hill, 

holt, in Suffolk, wrote a Commentary and Southwold in Essex. On Oct. 29, 

on the Epistles to Philemon and the 1636, he was collated to the Prebend 

Hebrews. It was published in 1635. of Totenhall in S. Paul s Church, and 

A list of the passages expunged is Oct. 20, 1638, he was installed Canon 

given by Prynne, Cant. Doom, pp. of Windsor, which canonry he resigned 

255, 259, 260, &c.] on being appointed Prebendary of 

[Samuel Baker, of Christ s Coll. Canterbury in 1639. He assisted in 

Cambridge. He was successively In- the Polyglott Bible. (Walker s Suff er- 

cumbent of S. Margaret Pattens, S. ings, par. ii. p. 7.)] 


Die Deci- The third charge was personally against myself, and taken 
ou ^ f mv speech in the Star-Chamber 1 . The words these: 
1 The altar is the greatest place of God s residence upon earth, 
greater than the pulpit ; for there tis Hoc est corpus meum, 
This is my body ; but in the other it is at most but Hoc est 
verbum meum, This is my word : and a greater reverenco is 
due to the body, than the word of the Lord. Out of this 
place, Mr. Nicolas would needs enforce, that I maintained 
transubstantiation ; because I say, there, tis Hoc est corpus 
meum. First, I perceive by him, he confounds (as too many 
else do) Transubstantiation with the Real Presence, whereas 
these have a wide difference. And Calvin grants a real and 
true presence, yea, and he grants realiter too ; and yet no 
man a greater enemy to transubstantiation than he. As I 
have proved at large in my book against Fisher 1 , and had 
leave to read the passage therein to the Lords. And Mr. 302 
Perkins avows as much k . And, secondly, the word there 
makes nothing against this. For after the words of conse 
cration are past, be the minister never so unworthy, yet tis 
infallibly Hoc est corpus meum to every worthy receiver. So 
is it not Hoc est verbum meum, from the pulpit to the best of 
hearers, nor by the best of preachers since the Apostles time. 
" And as preaching goes now, scarce is anything heard from 
many l in two long hours, that savours of the word of God." 
And St. Paul tells us, 1 Cor. xi. 1 , of a great sin committed in 
his time, l of not discerning the Lord s body, when unworthy 
communicants received it. Where was this ? Why it was 
there, at the holy table or altar, where they received, yet 
did not ( discern. I hope for all this St. Paul did not main 
tain transubstantiation. " Mr. Brown in his summary charge 
pressed this also upon me. I answered as before, and added, 
that in all ages of the Church, the touchstone of religion 
was not to hear the word preached, but to communicate. 
And at this day, many will come and hear sermons, who 
yet will not receive the communion together. And as I call 

1 [ from many in margin.] 

h P. 47. [p. 78 in margin.] k Perkins, Opera, in fol. p. 590. 

5 Contr. Fisher, [sect. 35,] p. 292, [torn. i. pp. 582586. Cambr. 1608. ] 
[Edit, 1639; p. 327, Oxf. 1849.] 1 Cor. xi. 29. 


the holy table the greatest place of God s residence upon Die Deci- 
earth ; so doth a late learned divine m of this Church, call the m P- sexto - 
celebration of the Eucharist, the crown of public service, 
and the most solemn and chief work of Christian assemblies / n 
and he a man known to be far from affecting Popery in the 
least. And all divines agree in this, which our Saviour 
Himself teaches, St. Matt, xxvi., t that there is the same 
effect of the passion of Christ, and of this blessed sacrament 
worthily received l ." 

Another passage taken out of my speech was, that due 
reverence be given to God and to His altar v. Hence Mr. 
Nicolas infers again : This reverence is one joint act, there 
fore His divine to the altar, as well as to God, and so idolatry/ 
First, the very next words in my speech are, that this reve 
rence to the altar comes ( far short of divine worship. What 
can prevent an objection, if such plain words cannot? 
Secondly, having thus plainly expressed it, he may infer too, 
if he will, that I do not then worship God. For this reve 
rence is one joint act ; but tis confessed, that tis not divine 
worship to the altar, and therefore not to God. "But, 
thirdly, this gentleman, by his favour, understands not the 
mysteries which lie hid in many parts of divinity. In this 
for one." For when this reverence is performed, tis to God 
as to the Creator, and so divine : but tis only toward/ not 
to the altar, and so far short. And though in outward per 
formance it be one joint act, yet that which is not e separated/ 
is, and must be distinguished one from the other. To make 
a good work acceptable to God, there must be both faith and 
charity : they cannot be separated one from the other ; what, 

1 [ And as I ... worthily received. on opposite page.] 

m [Herbert Thorndike was at this was a stall in Westminster Abbey, 

time Fellow of Trinity College, Cam- which he held till his death in 1672. 

bridge. He held the living of Clay- (Todd s Life of Walton, vol. i. pp. 209 

brooke in Leicestershire, and was soon seq.)] 

after Rector of Barley, and, in 16-13, " Thorndike, Of Assemblies, c.viii. 

failed in obtaining the Mastership of p. 260, 7. London, 1642. [Works, 

Sidney Sussex College, though elected vol. i. p. 274. Oxf. 1844.] 

by a majority of votes. During the St. Matt. xxvi. 26. " Idem est 

Rebellion he was employed as a cop.d- effectus Passionis Christ! et Eucharis- 

jutor of Walton in editing the Poly- tiae." - [S.] Thorn. [Aquin. Summ. 

glott, and was supported by the muni- Theol.] p. iii. q. Ixxix. A. 1. c. 

ficence of Lord Scudaniore. After the P. 49. [p. f 78 in marg.] 
Restoration, his highest preferment 


Die Deci- shall they not therefore be distinguished 1 ? He that speaks 
8exto (saith St. Aug.), by one joint act sends out his voice and his 
word r ; separated they cannot be, shall not they be distin 
guished therefore ? But I have lived long enough l , and 
taken pains to small purpose, if Mr. Nicolas or any layman 
else, at his by (199) and leisure hours, from a busy profession, 
shall be able to teach me in that which I have laboured all 
my life. And God bless the poor bishops arid clergy of 363 
England, if falling into a storm (as I now am) they must have 
such judges as Mr. Nicolas. 

IV. The fourth charge, is the licensing of Sales , and other 
books which had Popery in them 2 , by my chaplain, Dr. Hay- 
wood 3 . 1. To this Mr. Pryn (who is the single witness) says, 
that he tendered a bill to the then Ld. Keeper against my 
chaplain for licensing this book, and that his Lp. refused it. 
If the Ld. Keeper Coventry refused his bill, I believe, were 
he living, he would assign just cause why he did it. But 
whatever cause he had, it concerns not me, that he rejected 
the bill. Mr. Pryn says further, that this book of Sales 
was printed heretofore, but purged first by Dr. James ; but 
licensed now by Dr. Haywood, not according to that purga 
tion, but with all the points of Popery in. For this he 
produces Mr. Oakes, whose son printed it. And says further, 
that his corrector at the press found fault with some pas 
sages, and thereupon he was sent to Dr. Haywood, who 
returned answer (as they say) that if he licensed it, he would 
justify it. And that his son told him this V First, my Lords, 
this under-testimony of Mr. Oakes produced by Mr. Pryn, 
is nothing but a hearsay from his son, who is now dead, and 
cannot be examined, and while he was living ran away and 
would not be examined. Secondly, this was a most notable 
piece of villany practised against my chaplain, and through 
his sides against me. It was thus, my Lords : Whether the 

1 [ enough, in margin.] 2 [ and other . . . them in margin.] 

i "In bono opere Deo acceptabili, " Quamvis utmmque simul, qui loqui- 

fides et charitas distinguuntur, non tur, faciat."] 

scparantur." [See Laud s Letter in Hist, of 

r " Qui loquitur, sirnul facit vocem Chancellorship, Works, vol. v. p. 167.] 

et verbum." St. Aug. lib. i. de Gen. l [See Prynne s account of this busi- 

ad Lit. cap. 15. [Op., torn. iii. col. 215 ness, Cant. Doom, pp. 186, 187.] 

B. S. Augustine s exact words are : * 


bill were rejected or no, I cannot tell; but the complaint of Die Deci- 
printing this book came publicly into the Star-Chamber. m 
And then was the first time that ever I heard of it. I then 
humbly desired their Lps. that Dr. Haywood might answer 
whatever he had done amiss, either there or where they 
pleased. The court presently commanded Mr. Attorney 
Bankes to call all parties before him, examine them thoroughly, 
and then give his account what he found, that the court 
might proceed further according to justice. Dr. Haywood 
appeared, and showed Mr. Attorney how he had corrected 
Sales in all Popish points before he licensed it. But young 
Oakes, and he which brought Sales to be licensed (who was 
then thought to be some Jesuited recusant, and, as I remem 
ber, lodged for that time of printing, in Oakes his house u ), 
ran both a^ay, or hid their heads, and would not be found. 
And this was a mere plot of this recusant, if not priest, to 
have Sales printed, with all his points of Popery in him, to 
work mischief to my chaplain and myself. And young Oakes 
was in all likelihood well paid for his pains. This account 
Mr. Attorney brought into that court, and this relation Dr. 
Haywood (who I obtained might be after sent for) attested 
at this bar*. 

One circumstance my old decayed memory mistook. For 
I thought, and so at first told the Lords, that for this clamour 
raised upon him in this way, I did soon after dismiss him my 
house. But after, I found that he was gone out of my house 
before. Howsoever I left him, without any mediation, to the 
justice of the court. And here I may not forget that which 
I then observed to the Lords, that whereas tis urged, that 
many points of Popery have passed the press ; tis no wonder, 
if such art be used as was here to get out Sales. And this 
further is observable, that all these quotations of Popish 
opinions/ mentioned here to fill up the noise, are out of four 
or five books at the most, of which more are out of this Sales 
364 than all the rest. "And called in he was, as soon as known. 
Which Mr. Brown in the sum of his charge acknowledges." 

u [His name was Burrowes. See to Lord Wentworth (afterwards Earl 

Laud s Letter mentioned above, note s .] of Straff brd). (Straffbrd s Letters, vol. 

x [This statement agrees with what ii. p. 74.)] 
is mentioned in a letter from Garrard 


Die Deci- 2. After Sales, the next instance was in a book intituled, 
mo-sexto. , Christ s Epistle to the devout Reader >V Four particular 
points were urged out of this : but neither I nor my chaplains 
had aught to do with it. For it was licensed at London- 
House by Dr. Weeks. Nor was there ever any complaint 
brought to me to have it called in : nor was any such proof 
so much as offered. 

(200) 3. The third instance was of a book called The 
Female Glory z / where Mr. Pryn (who is single again) said 
that Dr. Heylin answered Mr. Burton, and justified all the 
passages in this book. And added, that this was by my 
direction. But upon my motion at the bar concerning the 
boldness of this oath, Mr. Pryn recalled himself, and said 
that I appointed him to answer Mr. Burton. But it is one 
thing to appoint him to answer Mr. Burton : and another to 
direct him to justify all passages in the Female Glory/ 

4. The fourth instance was in a letter sent to me from one 
Croxton, a young divine in Ireland a . He was bred in 
St. John s College in Oxford. At the Lord Mount-Norris b 
his entreaty, I sent Croxton into Ireland to be his chaplain. 
If he miscarried there, I could not help it, nor hinder his 
writing of a letter to me, nor prescribe what he should write 
in it. But, to my remembrance, I never heard of any mis 
carriage of his in matter of religion. And whether he be 
living or dead, I know not. That letter indeed hath a cross 

y [Prynne gives the title of the book, ever been published. (Wood, Ath. 

An Epistle, or Exhortatory Letter Ox. iii. 33.)] 

from Jesus Christ for every Faithful a [James Croxton Avas elected from 

Soul devoutly affected, and says that Merchant Tailors School to S. John s, 

the author was John Lanspergius, a Oxford, in 1622. (Wilson, Merchant 

Carthusian. (Cant. Doom, pp.186, Tailors School, p. 1193.) He is men- 

188.)] tioned several times in the corre- 

[ The Female Glory; or, the Life spondence of Archbishop Laud and 

of the Virgin Mary, was published Lord Straffbrd. He took an active 

by Anthony Stafford in 1635. In the part in opposing the Irish Articles in 

second edition it was entitled, The the Irish Convocation of 1634. His 

Precedent of Female Perfection ; or, letter mentioned in the text, which 

&c. It was attacked b} r Henry Burton, speaks of his practice in inviting his 

in his sermon entitled, For God and people to confession, is given in 

the King, pp. 123 125, and was dc- Prynne ^Cant. Doom, pp. 194, 195). 

fended by Heylin in his Brief and On his leaving Lord Mountnorris ne 

Moderate Answer to Henry Burton, was taken under the patronage of 

pp. 123, 124. Wood mentions that he Lord Strafford and Bishop Bramhall. 

had seen in MS. A just Apology and (Bramhall s Works, vol. i. p. Ixxxiii.)] 

Vindication of a Book entitled, " Tho h [Francis Annesley, created Baron 

Female Glory," by Stafford himself, Mountnorris in 1628.] 
but he did not know whether it had 


at the top of it. But then was another letter of his showed Die D^ci- 
without a cross, in which he calls Rome monstrum abominan- l 
dum. Howsoever, I conceive all this is nothing to me c . 

5. The fifth instance was a book, which they said was 
licensed by Dr. Weeks. And if so, then not by my chaplain. 
Eut upon perusal, I find no licence printed to it, nor to any 
of the other, but only to Sales , which is answered. 

6. The sixth instance was in Bp. Mountague s books, the 
Gagg d , and the Appeal 6 . Here they said that Dr. White 
told Dr. Featly that five or six bishops did allow these books/ 
Bat he did not name me to be one of them. Then Mr. Pryii 
urged upon his oath, that these books were found in my 
study/ And I cannot but bless myself at this argument. 
For, I have Bellarmine in my study f ; therefore I am a Papist : 
or, I have the Alcaron in my study ; therefore I am a Turk ; 
is as good an argument as this : I have Bp. Mountague s books 
in my study ; therefore I am an Arminian. May Mr. Pryn 
have books in all kinds in his study, and may not the Archbp. 
of Canterbury have them in his ? Yea, but he says, there 
is a letter of the bishop s to me, submitting his books to my 
censure?/ This letter hath no date ; and so belike Mr. Pryn 
thought he might be bold both with it and his oath, and 
apply it to what books he pleased. But, as God would have 
it, there are circumstances in it as good as a date. For tis 
therein expressed, that he was now ready to remove from 
Chichester to Norwich ; therefore, he must needs speak of 
submitting those his books to me, which were then ready to 
be set out, which were his Origincs Ecclesiastic^, not the 

c [Laud, in his letter to Strafford, commonly called Archbishop Marsh s 

July 20, 1638, expressly states his dis- Library, Dublin, copiously annotated 

appi-oval of Croxton s conduct in the in his own hand. The volumes origi- 

matter of confession.] nally belonged to Bishop Stillingfleet, 

d [The title of the book is, A Gagg whose whole library was purchased by 

for the New Gospel? No, a New Archbishop Marsh. These notes of 

Gagg for an Old Goose, &c. London, Archbishop Laud are referred to by 

1624. ] Bishop Stillingfleet in the Preface to 

e [The title of the book is, Appello his Discourse on the Idolatry of the 
Caesarem, a just Appeal from two un- Church of Rome.] 
just Informers. London, 1625. The * [This letter is recorded in Prynne, 
proceedings against Montagu are no- Cant. Doom, p. 351, who mentions 
ticed in the Notes to the Diavy, that it was received by the Arch- 
Works, vol. iii. pp. 167, 178, 180, bishop, March 29, 1638, thus bearing 
182.] out the statement below in the text.] 

{ [The copy of Bellarmine s works h [This was the second part of the 

which belonged to Archbishop Laud Origines Ecclesiasticse/ which was 

is now in the library of S. Sepulchre s, published in 1640, the first part having 
LAUD. VOL. iv. 


Die Peci- Gagg, nor the Appeal, which are the books charged, and 3G5 
xto * which were printed divers years before he was made a bishop ; 
and my receipt endorsed upon it is Mar. 29, 1638 1 . And 
I hope Mr. Nicolas will not call this the colour of an answer, 
as he hath called many of the rest given by me. 

7. The seventh instance was in a book licensed by Dr. 
Martin 1 , then my chaplain in London-House k . This book/ 
Mr. Pryn says, * was purposely set out to countenance Armi- 
iiianism, as if it had been some work of moment, whereas it 
was answered twice in the Queen s time 1 / If Dr. Martin 
did this, tis more than I remember ; nor can I so long after 
give any account of it. But Dr. Martin is living, and in 
town, and I humbly desired he might be called to answer. 
He was called the next day, and gave this account. 

The account is ivantiny ; a space left for it, but not filled up. 

Mr. Pryn says further, that after this he preached Ar- 
minianism at S. Paul s Cross/ Why did not Mr. Pryn come 
then to me, and acquaint me with it ? which neither he nor 
any man else did. And I was in attendance at court, whither 
I could not hear him. And the charge which came against 
him upon the next day s hearing, was this and no more, 
that one then preached at the Cross universal redemption / 
but he that gave testimony knew him not; only he says, 
one told him twas Dr. Martin V 

1 [ and my receipt . . . 1638. in margin.] 

2 [ And the charge . . . Dr. Martin. on opposite page.] 

appeared in 1636. It appears from godly English Bishops, holy Martyrs, 

Montagu s letter that the portion of the and others, concerning God s Elee- 

book which he submitted to the Arch- tion, and the Merits of Christ s Death ; 

bishop s censure was that which re- set forth by I. A. of Ailward (a late 

lated to the sacrifice of the altar.] Seminary Priest); and printed for 

5 [Dr. Martin was Master of Queens Samuel Nealand. 1631.] 
College, Cambridge, Rector of Hough- [Prynne asserts that this book was 
ton Conquest and of Dinnington, and written by Champneys, and that it 
Dean of Ely. He suffered severely was answered by John Veron and 
during the Rebellion, and died in Au- Eobert Crowley. (Cant. Doom, pp. 
gust, 1661. A long account of his 168, 169.) Crowley s answer is men- 
sufferings is given in Lloyd s Me- tioned under his name by Wood, (Ath. 
moirs, and Walker s Sufferings. The Ox. i. 544.)] 

Archbishop bequeathed him by his m [This space is a very short one, 

will his ring, with a hyacinth in it. ] only leaving room for a single word, 

k [The book licensed by Dr. Martin unless the Archbishop meant to write 

was, An Historical Narrative of the on the opposite page.] 
Judgment of some most learned and 


8. The last instance was of a Bible commonly sold, with Die Deci- 
a Popish table at the end of it V This is more than I know, m - sexto - 
or ever heard till now ; nor was any complaint ever brought 
to me of it. And I cannot know all things that are done 
abroad for gain ; for that will teach them to conceal, as well 
as move them to act. Yet one of the (201) Popish heads 
mentioned in that table was confirmation, which is com 
manded in our Church Liturgy, and ratified by law. 

Here this day ended , and I was ordered to appear again Julii 4. 
July 4. That day I received a note, under Mr. Nicolas his 
hand, that they meant to proceed upon the 8, 9, 10, 11, 
12, and 14th Original Articles, and the sixth and seventh 
Additionals. The last warrant for other Articles came under 
Sergeant Wild s hand, and Mr. Nicolas signing this, it seems, 
mistook for the eighth and ninth Original Articles are in 
part proceeded on before. Now they go forward with these, 
and then on to the rest, which I will write down severally as 
they come to them 1 . 

The same day, being Thursday, all my books at Lambeth 
were, by order of the House of Commons, taken away by 

Mr secretary to the Eight Honourable the E. of 

Warwick, and carried I know not whither, but are (as tis 
commonly said) for the use of Mr. Peters P. Before this time, 
some good number of my books were delivered to the use of 
the Synod, the ministers which had them giving no catalogue 
under their hands, which or how many they had. And all 
this was done contrary to an order of the Lords, bearing date 
Novemb. 9, 1642, for the safe keeping of my books there q ; 
and before I was convicted of any crime. This day also 
I received an order, which put off my hearing to the next 

1 [ The last warrant . , . them. on opposite page.] 

n [See this point urged by Prynne, Dr. Featly, Dr. Clerke, and the rest of 

(Cant. Doom, pp. 243, 244.)] the books that were given in evidence 

[The following order was made at this day against the Archbishop of 

the afternoon sitting of the House of Canterbury, with the expungings ; 

Lords : and deliver their judgments, whether 

" Die Jovis, 27 die Junii, post me- they are fit to be printed with the 

ridiem. expungings."] 

" Ordered, that Mr. Marshall, Mr. P [See above, p. 66, note m .] 

Herle, Mr. Vynes, and Mr. Chambers, i [See Diary at that date, Works, 

are to view and peruse the sermons of vol. iii. p. 247.] 

TJ 2 


CAP. XXXIX. 306 


I. THIS day I appeared again ; and the first charge against 
Julii 5, me was, that I had preferred none to bishoprics,, deaneries, 
Friday. prebends, and benefices, but men popishly affected, or other- 
^ e . wise unworthy/ And some they named. 

septimo. 1. As first, Dr. Manwaring, < disabled by the Parliament V 

2. Secondly, Mr. Mountague, ( excepted against by Parlia- 
mentV But for these no proof was now brought. They 
referred themselves to what was said before , and so do I. 
And where they go to prove only by dockets, I desire it may 
still be remembered that the docket is a full proof who gave 
order for drawing the bill at the Signet Office ; but no proof 
at all who procured the preferment. 

3. Thirdly, Bishop Corbet d . But the Earl of Dorset got 
my Ld. Duke of Buckingham to prefer him, to make way for 
Dr. Duppa, his deserving chaplain, into Christ Church f . 
Nor was anything charged against Dr. Corbet, but that he 
was preferred by me. 

4. Fourthly, Bp. Pierce ; against whom there was no proof 
offered neither. And he is living to answer it, if any be. 

5. Nor was there now any proof offered against Bp.Wren h , 
who was named also ; at the least, not till he was made a 

[See Works, vol. iii. pp. 207, 213.] Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, 1621 

b [Ibid, pp.167, 178, 180.] 1623. He was successively Dean of 

c [See above, p. 273.] Chester and Peterborough, Bishop of 

d [Richard Corbet, elected Bishop Peterborough, and Bishop of Bath 

of Oxford Sept. 24, 1628, (not July and Wells. He has been already no- 

30, 1629, as stated by Wood, Ath. Ox. ticed in connexion with the Becking- 

ii. 594 ;) he was elected Bishop of Nor- ton case and the Book of Sports. See 

wich April 7, 1632, and died in 1635.] above, pp. 121, 133.] 

e [Edward Sackville.] h [Successively Bishop of Hereford, 

f [Duppa became Dean of Christ Norwich, and Ely. He was during 

Church, October 24, 1628. (Rymer, the great Rebellion imprisoned nearly 

Feed. VIII. Hi. 28.)] twenty years. At the Restoration he 

[William Pierce first came into regained his Bishopric of Ely, and 

public notice by opposing the Cal- died in 1667.] 
vinistic party, during the time he was 


bishop. So if I did prefer him, it seems I did it when Die 
nothing was laid against him. And if after he had his pre- 
ferment he did anything unworthily,, that could not I foresee ; 
and he is living to answer it. 

6. The sixth was Bishop Lindsy 1 , a man known to be of 
great and universal learning, but preferred by the then Lord 
Treasurer Portland-), not by me. Him they charged with 
Arminianism. The witnesses two : the first, Mr. Smart k ; 
he is positive. He was his fellow prebendary at Durham. 
There was animosity between them. " And Smart not able 
to judge of Arminianism." Secondly, Mr. Walker 1 , who 
could say nothing but that he heard so much from some 
ministers and Dr. Bast wick m . " So here is as learned a man 
as Christendom had any of his time, debased in this great 
and honourable court by ignorance and a hearsay ; and that 
when the man is gone to that which should be his quiet, the 

7. The seventh was Archbishop Neile n , a man well known 
to be as true to, and as stout for, the Church of England 
established by law as any man that came to preferment in it. 
Nor could his great enemy, Mr. Smart, say anything now 
against him but a hearsay from one Dr. Moor, of Win 
chester . And I cannot but profess, it grieves me much 
to hear so many honest and worthy men so used, when 
the grave hath shut up their mouths from answering for 

8. The next was Dr. Cosin, to be Dean of Peterbo 
rough P. I named four of his Majesty s chaplains to him, 

1 [Augustine Lindsell. See a fur- m [John Bastwick, of \vhom more 

ther notice of him, vol. iii. p. 152.] in vol. vi.] 

J [See above, p. 227, note s .] n [Richard Neile was successively 

k [Peter Smart was collated to the Bishop of Rochester, Lichfield, Lin- 
sixth stall in Durham Cathedral, Dec. coin, Durham, "Winchester, and Arch- 
30,1609; and July 6, 1614, removed bishop of York. He died Oct. 31, 
to the fourth. He had been deprived 1640.] 

of his stall for a seditious sermon. At [This was Robert Moor, Preben- 

the beginning of the Long Parliament dary of Winchester. Wood informs 

lie was restored to his preferments, us that he had divers contests with 

and in his turn presented articles Neile, his Diocesan, for his intro- 

against Bishop Cosin. (Sec above, p. ducing certain ceremonies into the 

40, note i.) He appears to have lived Cathedral at Winchester. (Ath. Ox. ii. 

till 1652. (Wood, Ath. Ox. iii. 40.) See 654.)] 

Smart s testimony against Lindsell, P [Cosin was installed Dean of 

Prynne, Cant. Doom, p. 360.] Peterborough, Nov. 7, 1640. Thapre- 

1 [George Walker. See above, p. 82 .] ferments he held in the north were 


Die as he had commanded me. And the King pitched upon Dr. 367 

septimo". Cosens, in regard all the (202) means he then had lay in and 
about Duresm, and was then in the Scots hands ; so that he 
had nothing but forty pound a-year by his headship in Peter- 
House to maintain himself, his wife, and children. 

9. The ninth was Dr. Potter, a known Arminian, to the 
deanery of Worcester i. "What proof of this ? Nothing but 
the docket. And what of the crime? Nothing but Dr. 
Featly s testimony,, who says no more but this, that Dr. Potter 
was at first against Arminianism (that s absolute), but after 
wards he defended it, as he hath heard : (there s a hearsay.) 

10. The tenth was Dr. Baker . 

11. The eleventh, Dr. Weeks 8 . Both very honest and able 
men, but preferred by their own lord, the Ld. Bishop of 

12. The twelfth was Dr. Bray t . He had been my chaplain 
above ten years in my house. I found him a very able and 
an honest man, and had reason to prefer him to be able to 
live well; and I did so. Here is nothing objected against 
him, but his expungiugs and not expungings of some books ; 
which, if he were living, I well hope he would be able to give 
good account for. 

13. The thirteenth, Dr. Heylin u . He is known to be a 
learned and an able man ; but for his preferment, both to be 
his Majesty s chaplain and for that which he got in that 
service, he owes it under God to the memory of the Earl of 
Danby, who took care of him in the University. 

14. After these they named some, whom they said I pre 
ferred to be the King s chaplains. The witness here Mr. 
Oldsworth, the Lord Chamberlain s secretary v . He says, 
( the power and practice of naming chaplains was in the Lord 
Chamberlain for these 25 years. And I say, tis so still, for 

the Archdeaconry of the East Riding, r [See above, p. 283.] 
the Rectory of Brancepeth, and a stall s [See above, p. 239.] 
in Durham Cathedral.] * [ See above, p. 85.] 

* [Christopher Potter, Provost of ll [Ibid.] 

Queen s College, Oxford, was ap- T [Michael Oldsworth, of Magdalen 
pointed chaplain to the King, and College, appointed secretary to Philip 
nominated to the Deanery of Worces- Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery 
ter in the year 1635, from which he was in Oct. 1637. He had been pro- 
removed to the Deanery of Durham viously secretary to William Earl of 
in January 1645, but died before his Pembroke. (Strafford Letters, vol. ii. 
installation. (Wood, Ath. Ox. iii. p. 115.) He was at this time M.P. 
180.)] for Salisbury. (Wood, F. 0. i. 356.)] 


aught I know. He says, that in all things concerning Die 
which the Lord Chamberlain s warrant went in this form, ccimo- 


These are to will and require you, &c., that there his Lp. 
did it without consulting the King ; and that the warrants for 
chaplains run all in this form/ First, this is more than I 
know or ever heard of till now. Secondly, be it so ; yet tis 
hard to deny the King to hear men preach before they be 
sworn his chaplains, "if his Majesty desire it, since it argues 
a great care in the King, especially in such a factious time 
as began to overlay this Church." Thirdly, he confesses, 
that he knows not who put the King upon this way ; but 
believes that I did it. He is single, and his belief only is no 
evidence. "And whosoever gave the King that advice 
deserved very well both of his Majesty and the Church of 
England : that none might be put about him in that service 
but such as himself should approve of. But that which 
troubled this witness was another thing. He had not money 
for every one that was made chaplain; nor money to get 
them a month to wait in ; nor money to change their month, 
if it were inconvenient for their other occasions ; nor money 
for sparing their attendance, when they pleased. In which, 
and other things, I would he had been as careful of his 
lord s honour as I have been in all things. For tis well 
known in court, I observed his Lp. as much as any man." 

The men which are instanced in, are Dr. Heylin. But he 
368 was preferred to that service by my Lord the E. of Daiiby x . 
Then Dr. Potter. But the Ld. Keeper Coventry was his 
means. Dr. Cosens was preferred by Bishop Neile, whose 
chaplain he had been many years, and he moved the Ld. 
Chamberlain for it. Dr. Lawrence * was my Ld. Chamber 
lain s own chaplain, and preferred by himself; and in all 
likelihood, by Mr. Oldsworth s means : for he was Fellow of 
Magdalen College, in Oxford, as Mr. Oldsworth himself was, 
and he once (to my knowledge) had a great opinion of him. 
Dr. Hay wood 2 , indeed, was my chaplain; but I preferred 

1 [Heylin s original appointment Professor of Divinity. It does not 

as King s chaplain is preserved in appear from Wood s account (Ath. 

MS. Bawl. Miscell. 353. (Wood, Ath. Ox. iii. 437) that he was ever Fellow 

Ox. iii. 568.)] of Magdalen College, as stated below.] 

y [Thomas Lawrence, Master of * [See above, p. 210.] 
Balliol College, and Lady Margaret s 


Die him not to his Majesty till he had preached divers times in 

septimo. cour ^ with great approbation; nor then, but with my Ld. 

Chamberlain s love and liking. (203) As for Dr. Pockling- 

ton a , I know not who recommended him ; nor is there any 

proof offered that I did it. 

15. Then they proceeded to my own chaplains. They 
name four of them : first, Dr. Weeks. 13 ut he was never in 
my house, never meddled with the licensing of any books, 
till he was gone from me to the Bishop of London : so he is 
charged with no fault so long as he was mine. The second, 
Dr. Hay wood. But he is charged with nothing but Sales, 
which was a most desperate plot against him, as is before 
showed b . The third was Dr. Martin c . Against him came 
Mr. Pryn, for his Arminiaii sermon at S. Paul s Cross. But 
that s answered before. And Mr. Walker d , who said, he 
proposed Arminian questions to divers ministers. Belike, 
such as were to be examined by him. But he adds, as these 
ministers told him. So tis but a hearsay 1 . And say he 
did propose such questions ; may it not be fit enough to try 
how able they were to answer them ? The fourth was Dr. 
Bray. Against him Dr. Featly was again produced, for that 
which he had expunged out of his sermons/ But when I saw 
this so often inculcated to make a noise, I humbly desired of 
the Lords that I might ask Dr. Featly one question. Upon 
leave granted, I asked him, Whether nothing were of late 
expunged out of a book of his written against a priest 6 ? and 
desired him to speak upon the oath he had taken. He an 
swered roundly, that divers passages against the Anabap 
tists, and some in defence of the Liturgy of the Church of 
England, were expunged. I asked, By whom ? He said, 
* By Mr. Rouse and the Committee/ or, By Mr. Rouse or 
the Committee. Be it which it will, I observed to the Lords, 
that Mr. Rouse and the Committee might expunge passages 
against the Anabaptists, nay, for the Liturgy established by 
law, but my chaplains may not expunge anything against the 
Papists, though perhaps mistaken. 

1 [ But he adds, . . . hearsay. in margin.] 

[See above, p. 266.] e [The Look referred to appears to 

b [See above, p. 286.] be, Koma ruens, or an Answer to a 

c [Sec above, p. 200.] Popish Challenge, M hich was pub- 

d [See above, p. 293.] lished in 1644.] 


From thence they fell upon men, whom they said I had Die 
preferred to benefices. They named but two. Dr. Heylin 
was one again, whom I preferred not. The other was Dr. 
Jackson, the late President of Corpus Christi College, in 
Oxford f . Dr. Featly being produced, said, ( Dr. Jackson was 
a known Arminian/ If so to him, tis well : the man is 
dead, and cannot answer for himself. Thus far I can for him, 
without meddling with any his opinions. He was very 
honest and very learned ; and at those years he was of, might 
deserve more than a poor benefice. 

16. Here Mr. Pryn came in again, and testified very 
boldly, * that I gave many benefices, which were in the gift 
3C9 of the Master of the Wards : and all preferments, only to 
such men as were for ceremonies, Popery, and Arminian- 
ism. For the first of these two, the business was thus : 
there arose a difference between the then Ld. Keeper Coven 
try and the Ld. Cottington, then Mr. of the Wards, about 
the disposing of those benefices. It grew somewhat high, 
and came to hearing by the King himself. His Majesty, 
upon hearing, gave the right of sealing to the Ld. Keeper; 
but for the time, till more might appear, reserved the giving 
to himself, that he might have some of those lesser prefer 
ments to bestow on such ministers as attended upon his navy 
then at sea. I never gave any one of these benefices in my 
life. And that this story is of truth, the Lord Cottington is 
yet living, and can witness it. " And this very answer I gave 
to Mr. Brown, who in summing up the charge laid this also 
upon me, and without mentioning what answer I gave to 
it 1 ." For the second, that I preferred none but such men ; 
; Tis known I preferred Bishop Hall to Exeter ; Dr. Potter to 
Carlisle 11 ; Dr. Cook to Bristol 1 first, and then to Hereford; 
that I gave Dr. Westfield the Archdeaconry of S.Alban s k ; 

1 [ And this very . . . it. on opposite page.] 

f [Dr. Thomas Jackson was, in ad- Norwich, Nov. 15, 1641.] 

dition to his headship, Prebendary of h Dr. Barnabas Potter, consecrated 

Winchester, Vicar of Witney, and Bishop of Carlisle, March 15, 1628.] 

Dean of Peterborough. He was the [George Coke, elected Bishop of 

well-known author of the Commenta- Bristol, Nov. 28, 1632, translated to 

ries on the Creed, &c. (Wood, Ath. Hereford, June 18, 1636.] 

Ox^ii. 664, seq.)] k [Nov. 14, 1631. Westfield was 

K [Dr. Joseph Hall, elected Bishop in 1641 Bishop of Bristol.] 
of Exeter, Nov. 5, 1627, translated to 


that I was Dr. Fell s means for Christ Church 1 ; and Dr. 
septimo, Higg s his for the Deanery of Lichfield m ; that I settled Dr. 
Downing at Hackney 11 ; and Mr. Herrick at Manchester , 
when the Broad Seal formerly given him was questioned; 
that I gave two of my own benefices to Mr. Palmer? and 
Mr. Taylor q , two of the now Synod; an hospital to Dr. 
Jackson of Canterbury 1 ; and a benefice to his son-in-law, 
at his suit. I could (204) not name all these upon the 
sudden, yet some I did; and no one of them guilty of this 
charge in the least. " Mr. Brown in his summary said 
I could name but one or two. And when in my answer 
made in the House of Commons I specified more, among 
which Mr. Palmer was one"; Mr. Brown said in his reply, 
that Mr. Palmer had indeed his benefice of my giving, so 
himself told him 1 ; but it was at the entreaty of a great 
nobleman/ Say it were : Mr. Palmer was then a stranger 
to me ; somebody must speak, and assure me of his wants 
and worth, or I cannot give. But if upon this I give it 
freely, is it worth no thanks from him, because a nobleman 
spake to me? Let Mr. Palmer rank this gratitude among 
his other virtues." 

17. From hence they stepped over into Ireland, and ob 
jected my preferring of Dr. Chappel to be Mr. of the College 
at Dublin V Here the first witness is Mr. Walker. He says, 

1 [ so himself told him ; in margin.] 

1 [Appointed Dean of Christ Church, afterwards Fellow of All Souls, and 

June 24, 1638.] Warden of Manchester. Subsequently 

m [Griffin Higgs had been chaplain he sided with the Presbyterians, was one 

to the Queen of Bohemia; on his of the Assembly of Divines, implicated 

return to England he was appointed, in Love s plot, and assistant to the 

by Laud s interest, Hector of Cliff, Commissioners in Lancashire for the 

near Dover, Precentor of S. David s, ejection of scandalous ministers, 

and in 1638 Dean of Lichfield. (Wood, (Wood, Ath. Ox. iii. 78.)] 

Ath. Ox. iii. 479481.)] P [Herbert Palmer, of Ash well. 

n [Calibute Downing appears to Pie was afterwards Master of Queen s 

have obtained Hackney in exchange College, Cambridge, in the room of 

for West lisle y, Berks. Early in the Dr. Martin.] 

Rebellion he advocated the doctrine i [Francis Taylor, of Yeldon.] 

of resistance ; and at last, for his sedi- r [See above, p. 223.] 

tious preaching, earned the title of s [William Chappell, of Christ s 

Hugh Peters the Second. (Wood, College, Cambridge. In 1633 he was 

Ath. Ox. iii. 106, 107.)] promoted to the Deanery of Cashel, in 

[Richard Heyrick, (son of Sir W. 1634 to the Provostship of Trinity 

Hey rick, a friend and correspondent College, Dublin, and in 1638 to t\i& 

of Archbishop Laud, see Letters, vol. Bishopric of Cork. Articles of im- 

vi.) of S. John s College, Oxford, and peachment were exhibited against 


that all his scholars were Arminians/ This is a great sign, Di< 



but not full proof. He says, that Dr. Chappel was at Decimo 

first fierce against them, but afterward changed his mind/ 
Dr. Featly said the like of Dr. Potter. Some say, Arminius 
himself was at first zealous against those opinions, but study 
ing hard to confute them, changed his own mind. ft Take 
heed, Mr. Walker, do not study these points too hard." For 
my own part, Dr. Chappel was a Cambridge man, altogether 
unknown to me save that I received from thence great testi 
mony of his abilities, and fitness for government, which that 
college then extremely wanted l i . And no man ever com 
plained to me, that he favoured Armmianism. 

The other witness was Dr. Hoyle, a Fellow of the College 
in Dublin 11 . He says, f that the Doctor did maintain in 
that college, justification by works; and in Christ Church, 
370 Arminianism. In this he is single. But if it be true, why 
did not the Ld. Primate of Armagh punish him ? for he says 
he knew it. That he opposed some things in the Synod/ 
And it may be there was just cause for it. Lastly, he says, 
the late Ld. Deputy liked not the Irish Articles ; but gave 
them an honourable burial, as/ he says, the Ld. Primate 
himself confessed V I am a stranger to all this ; nor doth 
Dr. Hoyle charge anything against me ; but says, that they 
which did this, were supposed to have some friend in Eng 
land/ And surely their carriage was very ill, if they had 

18. Then were letters read of my Lord Primate s to me, 
in which is testified my care of the patrimony of that 
Church. And then a paper of instructions given by me to 
the Lord Deputy at his first going into that kingdom/ For 

1 [ which that . . . wanted/ in margin.] 

him in 1641 ; but at length he was factious person. On the breaking out 
permitted to visit England, where, of the Irish Rebellion, he retired to 
after enduring a series of misfortunes, England, and became Vicar of Step- 
he died Whitsunday (May 13), 1649. ney. He was appointed one of the 
(Biogr. Brit.)] Assembly of Divines, Master of Uni- 

1 [He was made Provost of Trinity versity College, and Regius Professor 

College, Dublin, on the retirement of of Divinity at Oxford. (Wood, Ath. 

Dr. Robert Ussher, whom Primate Ox. iii. 382, 383.)] 

Ussher admitted to be incapable.] * [On the adoption of the English 

u [Joshua Hoyle, originally of Mag- Articles by the Irish Convocation in 

dalen Hall, Oxford ; Fellow of Trinity 1634, see Elrington s Life of Ussher, 

College, Dublin, where he proved a pp. 173, seq.] 


Die the first; though it be thrust in here, among matters of 

scptimo. religion, yet I pray your Lps. to consider, tis about the 
patrimony of that Church only. And I thank them heartily 
for producing it. For in this letter is a full confession of 
my Ld. Primate s, that the motion of getting the impropria- 
tions from his Majesty (formerly objected against me) pro 
ceeded from him, as I then pleaded. And the letter was 
read y. For the second ; my Ld. Deputy, a little before his 
first going into Ireland, asked me what service I would com 
mand him for the Church there ? I humbly thanked him, 
as I had reason, and told him I would bethink myself, and 
give him my thoughts in writing z . These are they which 
are called ( Instructions. They are only for the good of that 
poor Church, as your Lps. have heard them. This was all ; 
and herein my lord showed his honour, and I did but my 
duty. " Though I very well understand, why this paper is 
produced against me." 

After this they proceeded to the eleventh Original Article, 
which follows in h&c verba : 

11. He in his own person, and his suffragans, visitors, surro 
gates, chancellors, or other officers by his command, have 
caused divers learned, pious, and orthodox preachers of. 
God s Word to be silenced, suspended, deprived, degraded, 
excommunicated, or otherwise grieved and vexed, without 
any just and lawful cause ; whereby, (205) and by divers 
other means, he hath hindered the preaching of God s 
Word, caused divers of his Majesty s loyal subjects to 
forsake the kingdom, and increased and cherished igno 
rance and profaneness among the people, that so he 
might the better facilitate the way to the effecting of his 
own wicked and traitorous design of altering and corrupt 
ing the true religion here established. 

1. The first instance to make good this Article, was a 
repetition of some lecturers before named a . But when they 

y [This, probably, is Abp. Ussher s following year.] 

letter, which is numbered clxxii. in * [See Abp. Laud s letter to Straf- 

Parr s Collection. It is by him placed ford, April 30, 1633.] 

in 1632, but is by Dr. Elrington [See above, pp. 232, seq.] 
transferred to its proper place in the 


thought they had made noise enough, they referred the 
Lords to their notes ; and so did I to my former answers. septimo. 

2. The second instance was out of some Articles of Bp. 
Mountague and Bp. Wrenn, and their account given to me. 
Bishop Wrenn, Art. 16, speaks of the afternoon sermons 
being turned into catechising/ And Art. 5, (of his Account, 

371 I take it,) that no lecture in his diocese after V &c. It was 
made plain to the Lords, that this was spoken of some single 
and factious lecturers, and that they had their lectures read 
by a company of learned and orthodox ministers by turns. 
As appeared by the Monday sermon at Burye, during that 
learned Bp/s time c . Nor were any forbid to preach in the 
afternoon, so the catechising were not omitted, before it, or 
with it. And the Bishop is living to answer it, if aught were 
then done amiss by him. In all which he did nothing, as 
any deputy or surrogate of mine, but as diocesan of the place. 
As for the yearly account to the King, according to his 
royal instructions in that behalf d ; though it AY ere pressed 
here again to multiply noise, yet nothing being new, I gave 
my answer as before, and to that I refer myself. 

3. The third answer was concerning Mr. Lee of Wolver- 
hampton e . The evidence was a letter of my secretary, 
Mr. Dell, written by my command, to my visitors there, to 
this effect, That whether there were cause or no, they should 
either punish Mr. Lee, or bring him into the High- Commis 
sion. Had the words or the sense been thus, they might 
well say, It was hard for the judge before whom the party 
was to answer, to write thus/ But I called to have the letter 
read again, and the words were these, If there were found 
against him that which might justly be censured, then they 
should punish/ &c. And the reason why this strict care 
was taken, was because the Dean of Windsor f his ordinary 
complained unto me, that Mr. Lee s carriage was so factious 

b [See the account of Bp. Wren, brother of Matthew Wren, Bp. of Ely, 

which appears to be referred to, in and father of Sir Christopher Wren) 

Prynne s Cant. Doom, pp. 374 376.] was at this time Dean, having been 

c [See ibid. p. 375.] installed April 4, 1635. The com- 

d [See vol. v. p. 311.] plaint had probably been made by his 

e [This case is enlarged upon in brother, whom he succeeded in this 

Prynne s Cant. Doom, pp. 380,381, office. The Deaneries of Windsor and 

who gives Dell s letter mentioned Wolverhampton were united by King 

below.] Edward IV.] 

{ [Christopher Wren (the younger 


Die there, that he could contain him in no order. If he e were a 

man after this approved at Shrewsbury/ (as Mr. "Walker 
witnesses,) I hope the proceedings at Wolverhampton did 
him good 1 . But, my Lords, had it so fallen out, that my 
secretary had forgotten my instructions, and himself too, and 
expressed himself amiss, shall that slip of his (had it been 
such) be imputed to me ? I believe your Lps. would not 
willingly answer for every phrase of your secretaries letters, 
which yet you command them to write. 

4. The last instance, was the sentence in the High-Com 
mission against Mr. Barnard, for words about Pelagian 
errors and Popery ^/ First, if he were sentenced in the 
High-Commission, it was the act of the Court, and not mine; 
as has been often said. Secondly, no proof is offered that he 
was sentenced for those words only. Thirdly, the Recanta 
tion (howsoever refused by him, as Mr. Pryn says it was) 
makes mention of four points for which he was censured, of 
which these words are one. But not the words themselves, 
but his unjust and scandalous application of them to me, 
which deserved them not. And lastly, Dr. Cumber, Master 
of Trinity College in Cambridge 11 , was prosecutor against 
him ; which office so grave and worthy a man would not 
(I suppose) have undertaken, had there not been great and 
just cause for it. 

Hence they proceeded to the sixth Additional Article, 
which follows in these words : 

That whereas divers gifts and dispositions of divers sums of 
money were heretofore made by divers charitable and well- 
disposed (206) persons, for the buying in of divers impro- 
priations, for the maintenance of preaching the Word of 
God in several churches ; the said Archbp., about eight 372 
years last past, ivilfully and maliciously caused the said 

1 [ If he were . . . good. in margin.] 

R [Nathaniel Barnard, Lecturer of his Sermon, as also his Recantation," 

S. Sepulchre s, London, who had been are given in Prynne s Cant. Doom, 

previously convented in the High pp. 364 367.] 

Commission Court, and had made his h [Thomas Comber, admitted Oct. 

submission, was again convented for 12, 1631. He had been appointed 

a Sermon preached by him at S. Dean of Carlisle in 1626. Lloyd 

Mary s Church, Cambridge, May 6, (Memoirs, p. 447) speaks highly of 

1632. The objectionable passages of his learning and attainments.] 


gifts, feoffments, and conveyances, made to the uses Die 
aforesaid, to be overthrown in his Majesty s Court o/ 
Exchequer, contrary to law, as things dangerous to the 
Church and State, under the specious pretence of buying 
in appropriations; whereby that pious work was sup 
pressed and trodden down, to the great dishonour of God, 
and scandal of religion. 

This Article is only about the feoffments. That which 
I did was this. I was (as then advised upon such informa 
tion as was given me) clearly of opinion, that this was a 
cunning way, under a glorious pretence, to overthrow the 
Church Government, by getting into their power more de 
pendency of the clergy, than the King, and all the Peers, and 
all the Bishops in all the kingdom had. And I did conceive 
the plot the more dangerous for the fairness of the pretence ; 
and that to the State, as well as the Church. Hereupon, not 
maliciously/ (as tis charged in the Article,) but conscien 
tiously I resolved to suppress it, if by law it might be done. 
Upon this, I acquainted his Majesty with the thing, and the 
danger which I conceived would in few years spring out of 
it. The King referred me to his Attorney and the law. 
Mr. Attorney Noye, after some pause upon it, proceeded in 
the Exchequer, and there it was by judicial proceeding and 
sentence overthrown. If this sentence were according to 
law and justice ; then there s no fault at all committed. If 
it were against law, the fault, whatever it be, was the judges , 
not mine ; for I solicited none of them. And here I humbly 
desired, that the Lords would at their leisure read over the 
sentence given in the Exchequer { , which I then delivered in; 
but by reason of the length it was not then read. Whether 
after it were, I cannot tell. I desired likewise, that my 
Counsel might be heard in this, and all other points of law. 

1. The first witness was Mr. Kendall k . He says, that 
speaking with me about Presteeii, I thanked God that I had 
overthrown this feoffment. 

2. The second witness, Mr. Miller l , says, he heard me say, 

5 Sir Leolin Jenkins hath a copy of k [ William Kendall. Prynne s 

it out of the Records of the Exchequer. Cant. Doom, p. 388.] 

W. S. A. C. [See Rushwortk s Col- [ Tempest Miller. Ibid.] 
lections, vol. ii. pp. 151, 152.] 


Die * They would have undone the Church, but I have overthrown 

scpUmo" ^ icir feoffment. These two witnesses prove no more than 
I confess. For in the manner aforesaid, I deny not but 
I did my best in a legal way to overthrow it. And if I did 
thank God for it, it was my duty to do so, the thing being in 
my judgment so pernicious as it was. 

3. The third witness was Mr. "White, one of the feoffees m . 
He says, ( that coming as counsel in a cause before me ; 
when that business was done, I fell bitterly on him as au 
undermirier of the Church/ I remember well his coming to 
me as counsel about a benefice. And tis very likely I spake 
my conscience to him, as freely as he did his to me ; but the 
particulars I remember not ; nor do I remember his coming 
afterwards to me to Fulham ; nor his offer to change the 
men or the course, so the thing might stand/ For to this 
I should have been as willing as he was ; and if I remember 
right, there was order taken for this in the decree of the 
Exchequer. And his Majesty s pleasure declared, that no 373 
penny so given should be turned to other use. And I have 
been, and shall ever be as ready to get in impropriatiqns, by 
any good and legal way, as any man (as may appear by my 
labours about the impropriations in Ireland). But this way 
did not stand either with my judgment or conscience. 

1. First, because little or nothing was given by them to 
the pre (207) sent incumbent, to whom the tithes were due, if 
to any ; that the parishioners which payed them, might have 
the more cheerful instruction, the better hospitality, and 
more full relief for their poor. 

" 2. Secondly, because most of the men they put in, were 
persons disaffected to the discipline, if not the doctrine too, of 
the Church of England. 

" 3. Thirdly, because no small part was given to school 
masters, to season youth ab ovo, for their party; and to 
young students in the universities, to purchase them and 
their judgments to their side, against their coming abroad 
into the Church. 

"4. Fourthly, because all this power to breed and maintain 
a faction, was in the hands of twelve men, who were they 
never so honest, and free from thoughts of abusing this power, 
ni [See above, p. 132, note?.] 


to fill the Church with schism, yet who should be successors, Die 
mid what use should be made of this power, was out of 
human reach to know." 

5. Because this power was assumed by, and to themselves, 
without any legal authority, as Mr. Attorney assured me. 

He further said, that the impropriation of Presteen in 
Radnorshire, was specially given to St. AntolinV in London 11 . 
I say the more the pity, considering the poorness of that 
country, and the little preaching that was among that poor 
people, and the plenty which is in London. Yet because it 
was so given, there was care taken after the decree, that they 
of St. Antolin s 1 had consideration, and I think to the full, 
He says, that indeed they did not give anything to the 
present incumbents, till good men came to be in their places. 
Scarce one incumbent was bettered by them. And what 
then ? In so many places not one f good man found? "Not 
one factious enough against the Church, for Mr. White to 
account him good?" Yet he thinks I disposed these 
things afterwards to unworthy men/ "Truly, had they been 
at my disposal, I should not wittingly have given them to 
Mr. White s worthies." But his Majesty laid his command 
upon his Attorney, and nothing was done or to be done in 
these things, but by his direction. For Dr. Heylin, if he 
spake anything amiss concerning this feoffment, in any ser 
mon of his , he is living to answer it ; me it concerns not. 
"Mr. Brown in the sum of the charge omitted not this. 
And I answered as before. And in his reply he turned 
again upon it, that it must be a crime in me, because I pro 
jected to overthrow it. But, under favour, this follows not. 
For to project, (though the word projector sound ill in Eng 
land,) is no more than to forecast and forelay any business. 

1 [ St. Antolin s written in both places S. An tns . ] 

n [This impropriation was, after its at S. Mary s, Oxford, July 11, 1630, at 

forfeiture, granted by King Charles I. the Act. The passage relating to the 

to the Rector of Presteign for ever. feoffees will be found in Prynne, 

This grant was revoked during the (Cant. Doom, p. 386,) who transcribed 

Rebellion, but confirmed by King it from a MS. copy of the Sermon in 

Charles If. at the beginning of his Abp. Laud s study; and in Heylin, 

reign.] (Cypr. Ang. p. 199, Lond. 1671,) who 

[The Sermon to which reference appears in his turn to have transcribed 

is here made, was preached by Heylin it from Prynne.] 

LAUD. VOL. iv. 


Die Now as His lawful for me, by all good and fit means, to 

sepUmo project the settlement of anything that is good ; so is it as 
lawful by good and legal means, to project the overthrow of 
anything that is cunningly or apparently evil. And such did 
this feoffment appear to my understanding, and doth still." 374 
As for reducing of impropriations to their proper use, they 
may see (if they please) in my Diary (whence they had this) 
another project to buy them into the Church s use P. For 
given they will not be. But Mr. Pryn would show nothing, 
nor Mr. Nicolas see anything, but what they thought would 
make against me. 

Here this day ended q , and I was commanded to attend 
Julii 15. again, July 15. But was then put off to July 17, which day 

p [See vol. iii. p. 255.] Dr. Martin, who were in prison by 

q [It appears, by the Lords Jour- order of the House, might be wit- 

nals, that the Archbishop desired nesses for him, and that the request 

this day, that Dr. Haywood and was granted.] 




THIS day they charged upon me the twelfth Original Julii 17, 
Article, which follows in these words: Wednes 


He hath traitorously endeavoured to cause division and^> lQ . 
discord between the Church of England and other Re- octavo. 
formed (208) Churches ; and, to that end, hath suppressed 
and abrogated the privileges and immunities ivhich have 
been by his Majesty and his royal ancestors granted to 
the French and Dutch Churches in this kingdom; and 
divers other ways hath expressed his malice and disaffec 
tion to those Churches ; that so, by such disunion, the 
Pa2rists might have more advantage for the overthrow and 
extirpation of both. 

The first charge is, that I deny them to be a Church : for I. 
they say, that I say plainly in my book against Fisher, that 
No Bishop, no Church 3 . Now tis well known they have no 
Bps., and therefore no Church/ The passage in my book 
is an inference of St. Jerome s opinion, no declaration of my 
own. And if they or any other be aggrieved at St. Jerome 
for writing so, they may answer him. Mr. Nicolas added, 
( that this was seconded by Bp. Mountague s book b , which 
Mr. Pryn (carefully) witnessed was found in my study, and 
licensed by Dr. Braye/ Is this argument come again, that 

a Cont. Fisher, 25, p. 176. [p. 194, per x fl P Gfffav Episcopalem ordina- 

note u , ad fin. Oxf. 1849.] riain. . . Nam quod praetendunt ordi- 

b [" Hoc ipsum officium et munus nariam vocationem retinendam, adhi- 

in Ecclesia, sive Apostolicum, seu sa- bendam, eique adhserescendum, nisi 

cerdotale, adeo esse de necessitate in casu necessitatis, absurdum est. . . 

salutis ordinaria, ut sine altero alte- Neque enim tails casus aut exlitit 

rum esse nequeat. Non est sacerdo- aliquando, aut contingere potest." 

tium nisi in Ecclesia, non est Ecclesia Rich.] Mounta. Origi. Eccles. p. 464. 

sine sacerdotio. lllud autein intelligo [Lond. 1640.] 

x 2 


Die Bp. Mountague s book was found in my study ? et Leave it, 

octavo. for shame." But they have now left me never a book in my 
study; so I cannot make them any fuller answer, without 
viewing the place, than themselves help me to by their own 
confession. Which is, that he adds this exception, that none 
but a Bishop can ordain, but in casu necessitatis, which is the 
opinion of many learned and moderate divines. " Yet this is 
very considerable in the business, whether an inevitable 
necessity be cast upon them, or they pluck a kind of neces 
sity upon themselves." 

II. The second charge is out of a letter of mine to Bishop 
Hall, upon a letter which he had formerly sent me; in which, 
it seems, is something about the case of necessity in point of 
ordination, which, they say, ( I disliked/ And it seems 
I disliked upon good ground. For he had given me power 375 
under his hand to alter what I would in that which he sent 
unto me. I would not take that power, but writ back to him 
what passages I thought might be better expressed, if it 
could agree with his judgment also. Hereupon he sent me 
another letter, of Jan. 18, 1639 C , in which he altered those 
things which I put to his further consideration. Could any 
thing be more fairly carried ? And this letter was read to 
the Lords. Yea, but they say, I disliked the giving of this 
title Antichrist to the Pope/ No, I did not simply dislike it, 
but I advised Bp. Hall, if he thought it good, not to affirm 
it so positively d . And the reason I gave was this : that 
King James being pressed upon a great occasion that he had 
maintained that the Pope was Antichrist/ which might 
much trouble, if not quite cross, some proceedings much 
desired by that prudent king; his Majesty made answer: 
I maintain it not as a point of faith, but as a probable 
opinion ; and for which I have more grounds than the Pope 
hath for his challenge of temporal power over princes. Let 
him recall this opinion, and I ll recall that / This I writ to 
the Bp., but left him free to do what he pleased. 

Here Mr. Nicolas fell extreme foul upon me, insomuch 

c [This letter is preserved in Spanish match was in contemplation. 

Prynne s Cant. Doom, p. 275.] But he had already used the same 

d [See Abp. Laud s letter to Bp. argumentum ad liominem in his con- 
Hall, Jan. 14, 1639.] troversy with Cardinal Bellarmine. 

c [The Archbishop mentions that See the Praefatio Monitoria, pp. 142, 

the King made this reply when the 143. Loud. 1610.] 


that I could not but wonder at their patience which heard Die 
him. Among other titles bestowed on me, many and gross, 
he called me over and over again, pander to the whore 
of Babylon/ I was much moved; and humbly desired 
the Lords, that if my crimes were such as that I might not 
be used like an Archbishop, yet I might be used like a 
Christian : and that, were it not for the duty which I owe to 
God and my innocency, I would desert my defence, before 
I would endure such language in such an honourable pre 
sence. Hereupon some Lords showed their dislike, (209) 
and wished him to leave, and pursue the evidence. 

" Mr. Brown, in summing up the charge, made this a great 
matter, the denial of the Pope to be Antichrist/ But I did 
not deny it, nor declare any opinion of my own : and many 
Protestants, and those very learned, are of opinion that he is 
not. Tis true I did not, I cannot, approve foul language in 
controversies. Nor do I think that the calling of the Pope 
Antichrist/ did ever yet convert an understanding Papist. 
And sure I am, Gabriel Powells peremptoriness (to say no 
worse) in this point, did the Church of England no good, no 
honour in foreign parts : for there he affirms, that he is as 
certain that the Pope is Antichrist, as that Jesus Christ is the 
Son of God and Redeemer of the world V As for the thing 
itself, I left it free to all men to think as their judgment 
guided them : as appears by the licensing of Dr. Featly s 
Sermons, where he proves the Pope, in his opinion, to be Anti 
christs. Where he calls him also the c Whore of Babylon 11 / 
which surely I should never have suffered to be printed, had 
I been her pander/ And for Bp. Hall, I only told him 
what King James had said, and left him to make what use 
he pleased of it." 

The third charge was out of a paper, which Bp. Hall, about III 

the time when he wrote his book in defence of Episcopacy, 

sent unto me, containing divers propositions concerning 

episcopal government ; in which either he or I, or both say, 

376 (for that circumstance I remember not,) that Church 

f "Tarn certo scio Papam esse mag- Epist. ad Lectorem. [Lond. 1605.] 

num ilium Antichristum, quam Doum s Dr. Featly s [Claris Mystica,] Ser- 

ipsum esse in ccelis Creatorcm,et Je- mon [lx.] p. 808. [Lond. 1636,] 

Mini Christum vcruni Messiam." Gab. P. 810. 
Pow. [Disput, Thcol.] do Antichristo. 



government by Bishops is not alterable by human law 1 / To 


octavo. this I answered, that Bishops might be regulated and limited 

1 [The following are the Proposi 
tions, as given by Prynne, (Cant. 
Doom, pp. 237, 238.) The passages 
in italics, as also the headings, were 
(according to Prynne) additions or 
corrections of the Archbishop. 

" Concerning Church-government, 
and the estate of Episcopacy : 

" 1. God had never any Church 
upon earth that was ruled by a pai-ity. 

" 2. The first Church of God, which 
was reduced to a public policy, was 
among the Jews, and, by His own ap 
pointment, was governed by a settled 
imparity of High Priest, Priests, Le- 

"3. The Evangelical Church was 
founded by our Saviour in a known 
imparity; for though the Apostles 
were equal among themselves, yet 
they were above the Seventy and all 
other disciples, and were specially in 
dued with power from on high. 

" 4. The same God and Saviour, after 
his ascension, did set several ranks 
and orders of the holy Ministry : first, 
Apostles; secondly, Prophets; thirdly, 
Teachers, &c. ; all which acknow 
ledged the eminence and authority of 
the Apostles. 

" 5. The Apostles, after the ascen 
sion of our Saviour, by the direction 
of God s Spirit, did exercise that 
power and superiority of spiritual ju 
risdiction over the rest of the Church, 
which was given them by Christ, and 
stood upon their majority above all 
other ministers of the gospel. 

" 6. The same Apostles did not 
carry that power up to heaven with 
them, and leave the Church unfur- 
ni c hed with the due helps of her fur 
ther propagation and government ; 
but, by virtue of this power, and by 
the same direction of God s Spirit, 
ordained in several parts spiritual 
guides and governors of God s people, 
to aid and succeed them. 

" 7. The spiritual persons so by 
them ordained were at the first pro 
miscuously called Bishops and Pres 
byters, and managed the Church af 
fairs, by common advice, but still 
under the government of the Apostles, 
their ordainers and overseers. 

"8. But when the Apostles found 
that quarrels and emulations grew in 
the Church, even while many of them 
were living, through the parity of 

Presbyters, and side-takings of the 
people ; the same Apostles, by the ap 
pointment and direction of the same 
Spirit, raised in each city where the 
Church was more frequent, one 
amongst the Presbyters to a more 
eminent authority than the rest, to 
succeed them in their ordinary power 
of ordination and censure, and en- 
charged them peculiarly wit h the care 
of Church-government. Such were 
Timothy and \Titus, and those which 
were styled the Angels of the seven 
Asian Churches. 

" 9. These selected persons were 
then and ever since distinguished 
from the rest by the name Episcopi 

" 10. In the very times of the Apo 
stles, and by the imposition of their 
hands, there were divers such persons 
settled in the Church of God, being 
severally ordained and appointed to 
the oversight of those populous cities 
where their charge lay, to whom all 
the Presbyters and Deacons were sub 

"11. These Bishops continued their 
fixed superiority over their clergy all 
the time of their life, with the well- 
allowed express of spiritual jurisdic 
tion ; and after their death other Pres 
byters were chosen to succeed them" 
(Bp. Hall, according to Prynne, had 
originally written, were succeeded by 
others of their own order and degree ; ) 
" by the due imposition of the hands 
of their fellow-Bishops. 

" 12. There was no Church of Christ 
upon earth, ever since the times of the 
Apostles, governed any otherwise than 
by Bishops, thus successively (after 
decease) ordained. 

" 13. This course of government, 
thus set by the Apostles in their life 
time, by the special direction of the 
Holy Spirit, is not alterable by any 
human authority, but ought to be per 
petuated in the Church to the end of 
the world. 

" 14. Those which in the New Tes 
tament are called the Elders of the 
Church, were no other than spiritual 
persons, such as had the charge of 
feeding the flock of Christ by word 
and doctrine. 

" 15. It is not lawful for any lay 
person to lay hands on those which 
arc to be ordained, nor to have any 


by human laws, in those things which are but incidents to Die 
their calling ; but their calling, as far as it is jure divino, by 
divine right, cannot be taken away. They charge further, 
( that I say this is the doctrine of the Church of England/ 
And so I think it is. For Bp. Bilson set out a book in the 
Queen s time, intituled, The Perpetual Government^. And 
if the government by Bishops be perpetual, as he there very 
learnedly proves through the whole book, it will be hard for 
any Christian nation to out it. Nor is this his judgment 
alone, but of the whole Church of England. For in the 
preface to the Book of Ordination, are these words : From 
the Apostles time, there have been three orders of ministers 
in the Church of Christ, bishops, priests, and deacons V 
Where tis evident, that in the judgment of the Church of 
England, episcopacy is a different, not degree only, but order, 
from priesthood, and so hath been reputed from the Apostles 
times. And this was then read to the Lords. And the law 
of England is as full for it as the Church. For the statute 
in the eighth of the Queen 1 , absolutely confirms all and 
every part of this Book of Ordination. Where also the law 
calls it, the high estate of prelacy. And Calvin (if my old 
memory do not fail me), upon those words of St. John, As 
my Father sent Me, so send I you, &c., says thus upon that 
place, Eandem illis imponit personam ac idem juris assignat". 
And if our Saviour Christ put the same person upon the 
Apostles, and assigned to them the same right, which His 
Father gave Him, it will prove a sour work to throw their 
successors the Bishops out of the Church, after sixteen hun 
dred years continuance. " And in the meantime cry out 
against innovation." For either Christ gave this power to 
His Apostles only ; and that will make the gospel a thing 
temporary, and confined to the Apostles times : or else He 
gave the same power, though not with such eminent gifts, to 
their successors also, to propagate the same gospel to the end 

hand in managing the censures of the Church of England, concerning these 

Church, which only pertain to them points of Church-government."} 

who have the power of the keys deli- j Bishop Bilson s Perpetual Govern- 

vered to them by Christ. ment. [4 to. Lond. 1593.] 

"16. There was never any lay Pres- k Book of Ordination, Preface, 

byter heard or read of in the Church 8 Eliz. c. 1. [ 3.] 

of Christ in any history, until this m S. John xx. 21. 

present age. All which we declare to n Calvin, ibid. [Op., torn. vi. par. ii. 

he the doctrine 1 and judgment of the p. 177. Amst. 1(567.] 


Die of the world, as St. Paul tells us he did 1 , Ephes. iv. Now 

octavo. ail the primitive Church all along, gives Bishops to be the 
Apostles successors ; and then it would be well thought on, 
what right any Christian state hath (be their absolute power 
what it will) to turn Bishops out of that right in the Church 
which Christ hath given them 2 . 

IV. The fourth charge was an alteration made in a Brief, for 
a third p collection for the distressed ministers and others in 
the Palatinate. The Queen of Bohemia* 1 was pleased to do 
me the honour to write to me about this ; and because two 
collections had been before, her Majesty desired that this 
third might be only in London, and some few shires about it. 
I, out of my desire to relieve those distressed Protestants, and 
to express my duty to the Queen, became an humble suitor 
to his Majesty, that this collection also might go through 
England, as the rest had done. And tis acknowledged by 
all, that this I did. Now the witnesses which accuse me for 
some circumstances in this business are two. 

(210) 1. The first is Mr. Wakerly \ He says, that Mr. 
Ruly 8 (who was employed by the Queen of Bohemia about 
this collection) was roughly used by me upon occasion of 
this clause put into the Brief, and which he says I caused to 
be altered/ This, first, is a bold oath ; for Mr. Wakerly was 
not present, but swears upon hearsay. Secondly, what kind- 377 
ness I showed him and the business is mentioned before ; and 
if for this kindness he had been practising with Mr. Wakerly 
about the Brief (as I had probable reason to suspect), I can 
not much be blamed if I altered my countenance towards 
him, and my speech too ; which yet these witnesses (for the 
other agrees in this) have no reason to call rough carriage, 
only upon Mr. Ruly s unthankful report. 

He says, that these words, the Antichristiaii yoke/ were 

1 [ as St. Paul . . . did/ in margin.] 

2 [ For either . . . them. on opposite page.] 

Ephes. iv. 11. James I., wife of Frederick V. Elector 

i> [This was in 1635. See Abp. Palatine, elected in 1619 King of Bo- 

Luud s Letter to his Suffragans, May hernia.] 

8, 1635, in vol. vi. Collections had r [Secretary to Sir John Coke, Se- 

beeupreviously ordered, June 17, 1618, cretary of State. (Prynne, Cant. Doom, 

and Jan. 29, 162|. (Prynne, Cant. p. 391.] 

Doom, p. 392.)] 3 [A Palatinate minister.] 
i [Elizabeth; daughter of King 


left out l . First, this is more than I remember ; and the Briefs 
I had not to compare ; nor is there any necessity, that two Deeimo- 
Briefs coming for the same thing, with some years distance octavo - 
between, should agree in every phrase or circumstance. 
Secondly, if I did except against this passage, it was partly 
because of the fore-recited judgment of King James, of which 
I thought his sou King Charles ought to be tender: and 
partly, because it could move nothing but scorn in the common 
adversary, that we should offer to determine such a contro 
versy by a broad seal. I remember well, since I had the 
honour to sit in this House, the naming of tithes to be due 
jure divino, cast out the bill ; a prudent lord asking the peers, 
whether they meant to determine that question by an Act of 
Parliament? The other part of the clause which they say 
was altered, was the religion which we with them profess : 
whence they infer, because f with them was left out, that 
I would not acknowledge them of the same religion ; which 
follows not. For we may be, and are of the same religion ; 
and yet agree not with them in those opinions in which we 
differ from them. And Mr. Wakerly confesses, that the words 
as altered, are, ( that they are persecuted for their religion ; 
and their religion is the Protestant religion, and so is ours. 
And therefore I could have no intention to make the religions 
different, but the opinions under the same religion. 

" For Mr. Wakerly, he is a Dutchman born ; and how far 
the testimony of an alien may be of force by the law, I know 
not : and a bitter enemy to me he hath ever showed himself, 
since I complained to the King and the Lords, that a stranger 
born and bred, should be so near a Secretary of State, and 
all his papers and cyphers, as he was known to be to Mr. Se 
cretary Coke : a thing which few States would endure : and 
how far the testimony of such a cankered enemy should be 
admitted, let the world judge. Admitted he 

1 [The passage said to have been these religious and godly persons being 

altered by Laud, is given thus by involved amongst others their country- 

Prynne (Cant. Doom, pp.263, 392): men, might have enjoyed their estates 

" Whose cases are more to be deplored, and fortunes, if, with other backsliders 

for that this extremity is fallen upon in the times of trial, they would have 

them for their sincerity and constancy submitted themselves to the Anti- 

in the true religion, which we together Christian yoke, and have renounced or 

with them do profess, and which we dissembled the profession of the true 

are all bound in conscience to maintain religion."] 
to the utmost of our powers ; whereas 


r>ie 2. The second witness was Mr. Hartlip. He acknow- 

ootavo. ledges my improvement of the collection, and my great readi 
ness therein which doubtless I should not have showed, had 
I accounted them of another religion. He says, there was 
no alteration but in that clause, and that implies a manifest 
difference/ But that is but in his judgment^ in which I have 
already showed that Wakerly is mistaken, and so is he. 
Beside, he comes here as a witness of the fact, not as a judge 
of my intentions or thoughts ! . He adds, l that, if he remember 
well, the alteration was drawn by me/ But, if he do not 
remember well, what then ? Surely here s no evidence to 
be grounded upon ifs/ Here upon the point of Antichrist, 
Mr. Nicolas styled me as before, and was furious till he 
foamed again ; but I saw a necessity of patience. " Mr. Brown 
also, in his summary charge, followed this business close. 378 
But I gave it the same answer." 

The fifth charge, and the last under this article, was the 
calling in of a book, an. 1637, showing the doctrine and dis 
cipline of the Church in the Palatinate 11 ; but called in only 
because against Arminianism/ The single witness, Michael 
Sparks. He says, (211) this book was called in/ but he knows 
not by whom, nor mentions he for what. But he says, the 
pursuivants which searched for it were mine/ He means 
such as belonged to the High-Commission ; for other than 
such I had none. And there was cause enough for calling 
in the book, without thinking of Arminianism. 

" But what is the reason, why here s nothing urged against 
me, about abrogating the immunities and privileges of the 
French and Dutch Churches, which fill the body of this 
article ? Why, I conceive there may be two reasons of it. 
One, because there was taken by Mr. Pryn, among other 
papers for my defence, a letter under Queen Elizabeth s own 
hand x , to the Ld. Pawlet, Marquis of Winchester, then Ld. 
Treasurer, in which she expresses her willingness, that those 

1 [ or thoughts. in margin.] 

u [The title of the book is, A De- swcr to the Scotch Articles. [It is not 

claration of the Ffaltzgraves ; concern- in the answer to the Scotch Articles, 

ing the Faith and Ceremonies professed but in the answer to the twelfth Origi- 

iu his Churches. Lond. 1637. ] nalArticlc of the Commons of England. 

1 See the letter above, in the An- Sec vol. iii. pp. 424, 425.] 


strangers, distressed in and for point of conscience, should Die 
have succour and free entertainment ; but should conform 
themselves to the English Liturgy, and have that translated 
into their own language. And they knew, I would call to 
have this letter produced, proved, and read. And had this 
letter been stood unto, they had never been able to do the 
Church of England half the harm they have since done. 
The other was, because they found by their own search 
against me, that all which I did concerning those Churches, 
was with this moderation, that all those of their several con 
gregations, in London, Canterbury, Sandwich, Norwich, or 
elsewhere, which were of the second descent, and born in 
England, should repair to their several parish churches, and 
conform themselves to the doctrine, discipline, and liturgy of 
the Church of England, and not live continually in an open 
separation, as if they were an Israel in Egypt, to the great 
distraction of the natives of this kingdom, and the assisting 
of that schism which is now broke forth y. And as this was 
with great moderation, so was it with the joint approbation 
of his Majesty and the Lords of his Council, upon the reasons 
openly given and debated : and all this before T proceeded to 
do anything. As appears apud Act a." 

Then they went to the tenth 1 Original Article ; which here 
follows : 

He hath traitorously and wickedly endeavoured to reconcile 
the Church of England with the Church of Rome, and for 
the effecting thereof hath consorted and confederated 
with divers Popish priests and Jesuits, and hath kept 
secret intelligence with the Pope of Rome, and by himself, 
his agents or instruments, treated with such as have from 
thence received authority and instruction : he hath per 
mitted and countenanced a popish hierarchy, or ecclesias 
tical government, to be established in this kingdom. By 
all which traitorous and malicious practices, this Church 
and kingdom have been exceedingly endangered, and like 
379 to fall under the tyranny of the Roman See. 

1 [This was printed by Wharton thirteenth. ] 

y I The paper containing these suggestions will be printed from the copy in 


Die The seventh Additional Article : 


ocuvo. That the said Archbishop at several times within these ten 

years last past, at Westminster, and elsewhere ivithin this 
realm, contrary to the known laws of this land, hath 
endeavoured to advance Popery and superstition within 
the realm. And for that end and purpose hath loittingly 
and willingly received, harboured, and relieved divers 
Popish priests and Jesuits, namely one called Sancta Clara, 
alias Damport, a dangerous person, and Franciscan friar, 
who, having written a popish and seditious book, intituled 
Deus, Natura, Gratia, wherein the Thirty-nine Articles 
of the Church of England established by Act of Parlia 
ment , were much traduced and scandalized ; the (21 & said 
Archbp. had divers conferences with him, ivhile he was in 
writing the said book ; and did also provide maintenance 
and entertainment for one Monsieur S. Giles, a Popish 
priest, at Oxford ; knowing him to be a Popish priest. 

I. The first charge, they said , was to be laid as a foundation, 
and it was, that I was generally reputed a Papist in heart, 
both in Oxford, and since I came thence. 

1. The first witness for this was Dr. Featly. He says, 
there was such an opinion of me thirty years since there/ 
But he says, he never heard any popish opinion maintained 
by me. So here ; s nothing of knowledge : and if I should 
say, that above thirty years ago there was an opinion, that 
Dr. Featly, then in Oxford, was a Puritan ; this could make 
no proof against him ; nor can his saying that I was reputed 
a Papist, make any proof against me. He says further, that 
one Mr. Russel, who had been bred in S. John s College, told 
him, in Paris, that I maintained some Catholic opinions/ 
First, Mr. Nicolas would have it, that this Mr. Russel was my 
scholar: 3 but that the whole college can witness it is not so; 
nor had he ever any relation to me, in the least degree. After 
his father s death, he left the college, and went beyond sea; 
where the weak man (for such he was) lost his religion 2 . 
1 [Wharton printed say. ] 

[George Russell, of S. John s Col- the College, but retaining in his hands 
lege, elected from Merchant Tailors the College money, went beyond the 
School. He was afterwards Bursar of seas, and became pensioner to the 


Secondly, Dr. Featly says expressly, that Mr. Russel said, Die 
1 1 was no Papist - which, for the countenance of his OAvn oc t a yo. 
change, he would never have said, had he thought me one. 
Thirdly, if he did say that I maintained some Catholic opinions, 
yet he named none, by which there might be trial and judg 
ment, whether they were such or no, in the sense he meant 
them J . Lastly, Mr. Perkins, in his Reformed Catholic/ sets 
down divers opinions in which they of Rome and we agree a : 
shall he be a Papist for this ? Or shall not that which is 
lawful for him, be as lawful for me ? 

2. The second witness was one Harris b . He says, that 
Mr. Ireland c , (who was some time student of Christ-Church 
in Oxford, and after schoolmaster at Westminster,) told him 
that I would leave the Church of England/ This is a bare 
report from Mr. Ireland, with whom I never had any ac 
quaintance, nor was scarce in his company twice in all my 
380 life. Nor is it in my power to hinder what Mr. Ireland will 
say, or Mr. Harris from him. He says, that one that called 
himself Leander d , came over on purpose to make this recon 
ciliation/ If he did (which is more than I know or believe) 
I think he would hardly make such a one, as Harris is 
reported to be, acquainted with it. But howsoever, if he did 
come with that purpose, was it in my power to hinder his 
coming ? And here is no proof offered that I did help 011 
his purpose, or so much as know of it. He says, he often 
petitioned me for relief, but had none/ It may be, I well 
knew he deserved none : and your Lps. know that by law I 
might not afford him any. Had I given him any, I should 

1 [ in the . . . them. in margin.] 

Archduke of Austria, and a man of d [Father Leander & S. Martino. 

consequence in his dominions. (Wood, His proper name was John Jones, 

F. O. i. 281.)] elected from Merchant Tailors School 

n [This is the case in every point to S. John s College, Oxford, in 1594 

which he discusses; stating first the (Wilson, Merchant Tailors School, 

agreements and then the differences.] p. 1190), not 1591, as stated by Wood 

b [See the deposition of Francis (Ath. Ox. ii. 603). He afterwards be- 

Harris in Prynne, Cant. D om, pp. came a Benedictine monk, and Profes- 

411, 412.] sor of Hebrew at Douay. See a full ac- 

c [Eichard Ireland was Master of count of his life, and his proceedings 

Westminster School when Bishop An- in England, in Butler s Memoirs of 

drewes was Dean, and Hac\et one of English Catholics, vol. ii. p. 311, and 

the Scholars. (Wood, Ath. Ox. iv. Dodd s Church History, vol. iii. p. 112.1 


Die now have heard it with both ears. For I am informed lie is 

Decimo- . -. . 

octavo. ft priest, and condemned m ^jwaemunire, and was let out oi 

prison, on purpose to be a witness against me e . And having 
set that which is aforesaid under his hand, is now slipped 
away, and gone. Who got him out of prison for this good 
purpose, I know not ; but sure somewhat there is in it, for 
your Lps. see his testimony is now read, but he appears not. 
3. The third witness was Sir Nathaniel Brent f (now 
absent, but came in the next day). He says, I was esteemed 
popishly affected in Oxford ; and he gave three instances very 
carefully, to prove it. The first was, that in the Divinity 
School there, I maintained the necessity of baptism/ I did 
so ; and my predecessor Archbishop Abbot was then Vice- 
Chancellor, and present, and approved my opinion and my 
grace passed for my degree to be Bachelor of Divinity without 
any one man s opposition *. He says, that Mr. Dale, of 
Merton College 11 , then showed him all my sup (2 13) position 
taken out of Bellarmin. This is a bold and a dangerous 
oath : he might swear that Mr. Dale showed him in Bellarmin, 
that which he said was my supposition : but that he showed 
him all my supposition there, is a strange oath for a man of 
learning and law to make, and in such a presence. Besides, 
I have my supposition, which I then made, yet by me ; and 
if my tenet of that question be the same with Bellarmin s, 
or that there be any line taken out of him, but what I cite 
for my own advantage against him, I will utterly forfeit my 
reputation of any learning to your Lps. His second instance 
was, that I was acquainted with one Mr. Brown *, Fellow of 
Corpus Christi College in Oxford, who was suspected to be 
a Papist, and after his death proved to be one by a book that 
was found in his study, proving that a man might be a Roman 
Catholic, and yet go to Church and conform in England. 
I was acquainted with this man ; he was a very good scholar 
and an honest man, and a good Protestant, for aught I know. 
For the tract found after his death among his papers, that s 

e [Harris had been released from e [He took the degree of B.D. July 

prison June 4, 1634, by Windebank s 6, 1604. Abbot held his Vice-chan- 

ineans. (See Prynne, Hidden Works, cellorship till July 14.] 

1>. 123.)] h [Christopher Dale, his colleague 

f [Warden of Merton, and Vicar- as Proctor in 1603.] 

General. See his Life in Wood, Ath. [Walter Brown, B.D. April <>,1606. 

Ox. iii. 333.] (Wood, F. O. i. 317.)] 


no proof: for scholars get all the papers they can, especially Die 
such as belong to their own profession. And the more strange 
the opinions are, the more do they labour to get them. Nor 
is it any proof that the tract was of his making, because 
written in his own hand/ as tis urged. For the argument 
being so foul and dangerous, it could not be safe for him, 
nor any way fit, to commit it to any other to write for him. 
Nor is there any proof that I knew he had such a tract by 
him ; neither indeed did I. The opinion is very base and 
381 unworthy, and was first broached by the Jesuit Azorius k , and 
it seems some of his fellows had enlarged him, and made this 
tract out of his principles. His third instance was, that I peti 
tioned King James in this business/ I was complained of to 
King James by a great person, that I had inward acquaintance 
with this man. Hereupon, my waiting month being June, 
and not long after the complaint made, I took occasion in my 
first sermon to confute this opinion, and then petitioned his 
Majesty that it might be examined, that such an imputation 
might not lie upon me. His Majesty referred it to the Lords 
Archbishop of Canterbury, Bishops of London, Winchester, 
and Duresm 1 ; where after full examination I was acquitted. 

The second charge was, that the same opinion was held of II 
me beyond the seas, that I was a cunning promoter of the 
Roman cause/ And here the witnesses are the same, which 
were produced before ; Mr. Challoner, who told over his old 
tale again of I know not what plot he heard from a Jesuit m : 
nothing but hearsay at the best. And it savours like an 
almanack de post facto, " or rather of somewhat else, which 
I will spare to name, because he is upon his oath." The 
other witness is Mr. Anthony Mildmay n , who also tells over 
his old tale of his Father Fitton. But he was out of the way 
again, and appeared not till the next day, with Sir Nath. 
Brent. So here s a repetition again of the same witnesses, 
and the same things, to multiply the noise. " Only noble 
Sir Henry Mildmay appeared not the second time; but 

k [" Quinto queeritur, An, ubi Catho- esse per se malum."] Instit. Moral. 

Hc LCumhereticisversantur,licitumsit p. i. lib. viii. c. 27. [p. 719. Col. Agr. 

Catholico aclire templa, ad quee hsere- 1602.] 

tici conveniunt, eorum interesse con- Abbot, King, Montague, Neale. 
ventibus atque concionibus? Respon- m [See above, p. 245.] 
deo, si rei naturam spectemus, id non n [See above, p. 246.] 


Die whether it were because he had enough at his first appearance, 

o cUvo or whether his face was scratched then (as since men say it 

was) I cannot tell." 

III. The third charge was, that I had a damnable plot, to 
reconcile the Church of England with the Church of Rome/ 
If to reconcile them with the maintenance of idolatry, it were 
a damnable plot indeed. But if Christian truth and peace 
might meet and unite together, all Christendom over ; were 
that a sin too ? Were I able to plot and effect such a recon 
ciliation, I would think myself most happy, whatever I suf 
fered for it. But how is this damnable plot proved ? Pope 
Gregory writ a letter to his nuncio in Spain , and a letter 
also to King Charles P, which letter is printed : copies of these 
letters were found in my study/ Could I hinder the Pope 
from writing to whom he pleased ? Shall not I get copies of 
any letters I can, to see what practising is abroad for private 
interest ? Shall it be lawful for all my (214) predecessors to 
get and keep copies of such letters by them, and shall it be 
unlawful for me only ? And here I produced Mr. Dobson, 
an ancient servant to my predecessors, who witnessed that 
Archbishop Bancroft had store of them, and kept them all his 
time. Nor do I know how this charge can fall upon me : 
for there is no one word in any of the letters produced, that 
reflects upon me, or any plot of mine. Nor indeed had I 
ever any such to reflect upon. 

JY t The fourth charge is, that I had a hand in the plot for 

sending the King, when he was a prince, into Spain, to be 

perverted in his religion/ They follow their proof of this out 

. of my Diary : and they begin with my friendship with the 

Ld. Duke of Buckingham, who waited on the Prince in this 

journey. And first they urged my Diary at June 9, 1622, 

where I mention that there were then J particulars, which are 

not for paper 4 . 1 But the words, which lead these in, were 382 

his entrance upon a near respect to me, the particular expres- 

1 [ there were then in margin.] 

[See this letter of Gregory XV. to Mcrcure Francois, torn. ix. anno 1623, 

the Bishop of Cuena, Inquisitor Ge- pp. 509, 510. It has been printed, 

neral in Spain, from the copy in the among other places, in Rush worth s 

Archbishop s study, in Prynne s Hid- Collection, vol. i. p. 78, and in the Cla- 

den Works, pp. 34, 35.] rendon and Hardwick Papers.] 

P fPrynne reprints this letter in i [See Works, vol. iii. p. 139.] 
Hidden Works, pp. 3638, from the 


sions whereof were not for paper : nor word, nor thought Die 
of either plot or f popery/ Then they urged June 15, 1622, oc tavo. 
where tis said, that I became C. that is, Confessor to the 
Ld. Duke V First, if my Ld. Duke would honour me so much 
as to make me his confessor/ as I know no sin in it, so is it 
abundantly proof, that the passages before mentioned were 
not for paper. Should I venture them so, there s never a 
person of honour present, but would think me most unworthy 
of that trust. Next, they pressed June 13, 1623, where I 
confess, that I received letters from my Ld. Duke out of 
Spain s . I did so ; and I then held it great honour to me, 
and do so still. But then, and long before, it was known to 
all men whither he was gone, and with whom : nay, it was 
commonly known to all men of quality hereabout within 
three or four days : and till it was so commonly known, 
I knew it not. Yea, but then they enforced out of Feb. 17, 
162f, that the f Prince and the Marquis of Buckingham set 
forward very secretly for Spain V And Feb. 21, that I writ 
to his Lp. into Spain V Tis true, they went away that day, 
and very secretly ; but I neither did, nor could set it down, 
till afterwards that I came to know it. And then, so soon 
as I came to know it, which was about the 21st, I did write. 
To these was cunningly " (how honestly let all the world 
judge)" pieced a passage out of a letter of mine to Bp. Hall x . 
But that letter was read, at my humble motion to the Lords, 
and the date of it was in 1634 y. So, many years after this 
business of Spain. And the passage mentioned, was only 
about King James his manner of defending the Pope to be 
Antichrist, and how he salved it while the Prince was in Spain. 
But King James related it after. Nor could any words of that 
letter be drawn to the King s going thither, much less to any 
knowledge I had of it. 

The fifth charge was concerning his Majesty s match with V, 
France. And here again they urge my Diary at Mar. 11, 
1625, that the Duke of Buckingham was then and there 
employed 2 . And at May 19 a , and 29 b , that I then writ 

Works, vol. iii. p. 139.] 

Ibid. p. 142. 

Ibid. p. 141. 


;See above, p. 308.] 


The letter was written in 1639.] 

Works, vol. iii. p. 162.] 


Ibid. p. 163.] 


Die letters to him. First, my Lords, I hold it my great honour, 


that mv Lord Duke would write to me, and give me leave to 

write to him. Secondly, I have committed some error in 
these letters, or none. If none, why are they charged? If 
any, why are they not produced, that I may see what it is, 
and answer it ? 

VI. The sixth charge was, that I was an instrument of the 
Queen s/ This they endeavoured to prove by my Diary in 
three places. First, at Aug. 30, 1634. Upon occasion of 
some service done, she was graciously pleased to give me leave 
to have immediate access unto her, when I had occasion / 
This is true, and I most humbly thanked her Majesty for it : 
for I very well knew what belonged to addresses at second 
hand in court. But what crime is in this, that the Queen 
was pleased to give me access unto her, when I had occa 
sion ? Here & no word of religion. Secondly, at May 18, 
(215) 1635, where tis said, that I gave her Majesty an 
account of something committed to me d / If her Majesty 
sent or spake to me to do anything, as it seems she did, shall 
I want so much duty as to give her an account of it ? So 
belike I must be unmannerly with her Majesty, or lie open 
to no less than a charge of high treason. Thirdly, at April 3, 383 
1639. Tis made a great matter, ( that I should then despatch 
a great business for the Queen, which I understood she would 
not move for herself/ and that for this her Majesty gave 
me great thanks e / Mr. Nicolas his inference upon this, 
was, that they conceive wherefore/ But his conceit makes 
no evidence : he must not only conceive, but prove wherefore, 
before it can work anything against me. As for religion, as 
there is no word of it in my Diary, so neither was it at this 
time thought on. Her Majesty would therein have moved 
for herself. But it seems it must be a crime if I be but civil 
and dutiful towards the Queen, though it be but thrice men 
tioned in so many years. 

VII. The seventh charge was, that I forbad ministers praying 
for the Queen s conversion, and punished others/ The first 
witness, Mr. Ratcliff f , says, that Sir Nath. Brent gave it 

c [Works, vol. iii. p. 222.] f [Hugh Ratcliffe, of S. Martin s, 

d [Ibid. p. 223.] Ludgate. (See Prynnc a Cant. Doom, 

[Ibid. p. 232.] p. 420.)] 


in charge at Bow church in my visitation/ The more to Die 
blame he, if so he did. Yea, but he says, it was by my 
command delivered unto him by Sir John Lambe/ Was it 
so ? How doth Mr. Ratcliff know that ? He doth not 
express. He was not present, when I spake with Sir John 
Lambe. And if Sir Nathaniel Brent told him of it, tis but 
hearsay. And Sir Nathaniel having been so ready a witness 
against me, why is he not examined to this particular ? And 
as for the paper which was showed, it appears plainly there, 
that it was no paper of instructions sent to my visitors by 
me, but of particular informations to me^ : of which one was, 
that the Queen was prayed for in a very factious and scan 
dalous way/ And this appeared when that paper was read. 
And this I referred to my visitors, as I not only might, but 
ought : not forbidding the prayers, but the scandalous manner 
of them. The second witness was Mr. Pryn. Who says, that 
one Mr. Jones was punished for praying for the Queen 11 / He 
was punished in the High-Commission for scandalous abusing 
the Queen, under a form of praying for her, and for divers 
other articles that were against him. "And this answer I 
gave to Mr. Brown, who forgot not this in summing up my 

The eighth charge was, that I punished men for praying VIII, 
to preserve the Prince/ Now, God forbid. The High- 
Commission book was showed, and that there, in the year 
1631, one Mr. Howe was censured for it 1 . I got this act of 
the High-Commission to be read to the Lords : his prayer 
went thus, ( that God would preserve the Prince in the true 
religion, of which there was cause to fear/ Could this prayer 
have any other operation upon the people, than to make 
them think his Majesty was careless in the education of the 
Prince, especially in point of religion ? And this was so 
grievous and graceless a scandal cast upon a religious King, 
as nothing could be greater. Upon the matter, it was the 
show of a prayer for the Prince, but was indeed to destroy 
the King in the hearts of his people. And had I not there 
consented to his punishment, I had deserved to be punished 

s [See Prynne s Cant, Doom, p. 418.] * [John Howe, of Loughborough, in 

h [William Jones, a Gloucestershire Leicestershire. (See Prynne s Cant. 

Minister (Prynne s Cant. Doom, p. Doom, p. 420.) He was the father of 

420).] the celebrated Puritan divine.] 

Y 2 


Die myself. f< Mr. Brown, when he repeated the sum of the 

octavo. evidence, laid this charge home upon me, but spake not one 
word (to my remembrance) of this answer given to it." 

IX. The ninth charge, that I did extol Queen Mary s days. 
The proof for it was taken out of the Preface to the Statutes 

of the University of Oxford. I took a great deal of pains 384 
about those statutes, and might justly have expected thanks 
for it, not such an accusation. But as for the Preface, it 
was made and printed at Oxford : I meddled not with it k . 
I could trust the University with little, if not with the making 
of a (216) preface. If they have done anything amiss in it, 
let them answer it. The passage was about certain offers 
made to amend those confused old statutes, both in Ed. VI. 
and Qn. Mary s days ; but no effect came of the pains then 
taken ; Recruduit labor, says the Preface. So that this I can 
answer for them : there s not a word spoken of religion, but 
of manners only, and that as much in relation to the times 
of princes following, as hers. For the words, to my remem 
brance, are, Interim optanda temporum felicitate *, &c. And 
that interim cannot be restrained to Queen Mary s days 
only, but must include the whole interim, or middle distance 
of time to that present in which I settled the whole body of 
their statutes, that is, all Queen Elizabeth s and King James 
his days ; which I think no man can deny was, optanda 
temporum felicitas l . 

X. Here Mr. Nicolas confessed there was no downright proof 
against me. That was his phrase : but he added, that was 
not to be expected in such a work of darkness. Then he 
c produced a paper found in my study, printed at Rome *V 
So were divers of my books printed there : what of this ? 

1 [ For the words, . . . temporum felicitas. on opposite page.] 

k [The Preface was written by Brian resarcivit innatus candor ; et quicquid 

Twyne. But the words complained of, legibus deerat, moribus suppletum 

Wood says,, were inserted by another est."] 

hand. Annals, p. 392.] m [A description of this paper 

1 [The passage is the following: printed at Home is found in Prynne s 
" Paulo post potiente rerura Maria, sub Cant. Doom, pp. 421, 422. It con- 
Card inalis Poli auspiciis idem recru- tained the Conclusiones Theologicee of 
duit, labor, novse exinde datae leges, sed Ludovicus a Sancta M aria, (an English 
pari cum prioribus angustia. Interim friar named Morton, or Kerton, then 
tamen, inter incerta vacillans statuta, residing at Kome.) The paper was 
viguit Academia, colebantur studia, dedicated to Card. Barberino, as the 
enituit disciplina ; et optanda tempo- protector of the English nation.] 
rum felicitate, tabularum dcfectus 


They may print what they will at Rome,, I cannot hinder it : Die 
and I may have and keep whatever they print, no law for- 
bidding it. Then he showed a letter sent unto me from 
Mr. Graves 11 . The gentleman is at this present Fellow of 
Merton College in Oxford, a great traveller, and a man of 
great worth. As far as I remember, his letter came to me 
from Alexandria. It was fit to be sent, and kindly received ; 
as by me it was. I desired it might be read. Then were 
mentioned Sir William BoswelPs letters, and the papers 
sent by Andreas ab Habernfeld, about a great plot to destroy 
the King and religion, and that I concealed these papers/ 
" I might have been amazed at the impudence of this charge 
above all the rest. Diaboli impudentia, the devil s impudence, 
and no less, as S. Augustin speaks in another case ." Did I 
conceal these papers ? First, the same day that 1 received them, 
I sent them by an express to his Majesty. I had a speedy 
answer from his Majesty, and that I returned with equal 
speed to his Majesty s agent, Sir Wi. Boswell, as I was com 
manded. And this Mr. Pryn, and Mr. Nicolas knew. For 
Mr. Pryn took all these letters and papers from me, when 
he searched me at the Tower ; and out of them made his book 
called Rome s Masterpiece P : " excepting the slanders, which 
he hath juggled in of his own." So soon as his Majesty 
came home, I humbly besought him, that he would be pleased 
to appoint a time, and call some Lords to him to hear and 
examine the business, and this examination continued till 
I was committed. What was after done, I cannot account 

n [This letter by John Greaves men- quarto. A copy whereof being by his 
tions that Cardinal Barberino was endeavours conveyed to the Arch- 
about to edit Fastidius, de Vita Chris- bishop, then a prisoner in the Tower, 
ti ana, and dedicate it to King Charles the Archbishop wrote notes in the 
I. The letter was written from Leg- margin of it, so far, and so much, as 
horn. (See Prynne s Cant. Doom, to vindicate himself from the asper- 
p. 421.) Greaves was appointed, No- sions laid upon him therein. This 
vember 14, 1643, Savilian Professor of copy with the said notes is now in the 
Astronomy, and was ejected by the hands of that knowing and learned 
Parliamentary Visitors, October 30, antiquary, Mr. Anthony Wood ; which 
1618.] having been by him communicated to 

[S. Augustine is speaking of the me, I have, with his leave, transcribed 

pertinacious appeals of the Donatists. the Archbishop s notes, and caused 

His exact words are :" Puto quod ipse them to be adjoined to these papers 

diabolus . . . non esset tarn impudens, concerning the plot discovered by 

ut in ea causa persisteret."] S. Aug. Andrew ab Habernfeld, reprinted in 

Epist, clxvii. [Ixxxix. Ben. 3. Op., the following collection. H. W. [See 

torn. ii. col. 330. A.] below. In a former note it was stated 

P This book was published by Pryn that these papers would be reprinted 

in the year 1643, in five sheets in in vol. vi.] 


Dio for. Besides, my Lords, it appears by those papers, that my 

octavo 10 l*f e was sou S nt for, because I would not give way to the 385 
change of religion ; and Mr. Pryn himself hath printed this ; 
and yet now Mr. Nicolas, from his testimony, presses these 
papers against me. But the King, and the Lords, and both 
Secretaries of State then present, can witness, that I took all 
the care and pains above-mentioned, to have it sifted to the 
bottom. " Notwithstanding all this, Mr. Nicolas falls upon 
this plot again upon the next day of my hearing, as if nothing 
had been said unto it : and was so shameless, as to say, that 
I followed this business so long as I thought the plot was 
against the Puritans : but so soon as I found it was against 
the Papists, I kept it secret, till Mr. Pryn discovered it in his 
search of my papers. Where, first, there s no one word in 
all the papers to make me, or any man, think the Puritans 
were concerned in it. And, secondly, I did not sleep upon 
the receipt of these papers, till I had sent them to his 
Majesty. But I had reason to keep the papers as safe as 
I could, considering how much they justify me against these 
foul calumnies put upon me." 

XI. Then followed the charge of Sancta Clara s book, alias 
Monsieur St. Giles : so they expressed it ; and I must follow 
the way they lead me. 1 . First, then, they charge that I had 
often conference with him, while he was writing his book 
intituled, Deus, Natura, Gratia q / No, he never came to me 
till he was ready to print that book. Then some friends of 
his brought him to me. His suit then was, that he might 
print that book here. Upon speech with him, I found the 
scope of his book to be such, as that the Church of England 
would have little cause to thank him for it : and so absolutely 
denied it. Nor did he ever come more at me after this, but 
twice or thrice at most, when he made great friends to me, 
that he might print another bo ->k, to prove that bishops are 
by divine right 1 . My answer then was, that I did not like 

i [The title of the book is, Deus, an English missionary. Davenport 

Natura, Gratia, &c. . . . ubi ad truti- went also by the names of Francis 

nam Fidei Catholicse examinaturCon- Hunt and Francis Coventrv. (Wood, 

fessio Anglicana. Lugd. 1634. The Ath. Ox. iii. 1221.)] 

author was Francis a Simcta Clara, r [This appears to be the book 

whose real name was Christopher Da- which he printed at Cologne, in 164u, 

venport. He was originally of Merton under the title, Apologia Episcopo- 

College, but joined the order of Fran- rum. ] 
ciiicaus in 1617, and at length became 


the way which the Church of Rome went, in the case of Die 
episcopacy. And howsoever, that I would never give way, 
that any such book should be printed here from the pen of 
a Romanist ; and that the bishops of England were able to 
defend (2 1 7) their own cause and calling, without calling in 
aid from Rome ; and would in due time. Maintenance he 
never had any from me, nor did I then know him to be a 
priest. Nor was there any proof so much as offered in con 
trary to any of this s . 

2. Secondly, they did specially except against a passage 
in the licenser, and another at the end of the book V The 
book was printed at Lyons, where I could not hinder the 
printing, either of the whole or any part. This might have 
been something, had I licensed it here ; but that I constantly 

3. Thirdly, they produced a letter written to me from 
Venice, by one Mr. Middleton u , Chaplain there to the right 
honourable the now Earl of Denbigh x , his Majesty s ambas 
sador. Therein he writes, that S. Clara was homo nequis- 
simus, and that one Monsieur S. Giles was the author of that 
book/ That Clara and S. Giles were the same person, is but 
Mr. Middleton s opinion. Such news as he there heard, 
some true, some false, he thought fit to write unto me : and 
he being absent, here s no proof upon oath, that they are one 
and the same person. And I hope a young man s letter from 
Venice, or any other place, signifying only such things as he 

386 hears, shall not stand for good evidence in a case of life. 
And he was mainly deceived in this particular, as appears : 
First, because what Clara is, I know not : but Monsieur S.Giles 
is a great scholar, and a sober man ; and one that gave the 
late Lord Brooke y so good content, that he allowed him one 
hundred pound a year during his life. Secondly, because tis 
commonly known that Clara is an Englishman, and S. Giles 
a Frenchman born and bred. Thirdly, because their own 

8 [See another, but similar account Cant. Doom, pp. 429, 430.] 

by the Archbishop of his connexion x [Basil Feilding, the second Earl of 

with S. Clara, in Prynne s Cant. Doom, Denbigh. He succeeded his father in 

p. 427.] the title, April 8, 1643. See his cha- 

* [The passages excepted against racter in Clarendon, Hist, liebell. vol. 

are given in full in Prynne s Cant. v. p. 74.] 

Doom, pp. 424 426.] y [Robert Greville, second L<jrd 

, u [Prynnc gives this letter at length, Brooke.] 


Die Article % upon which they bring this charge, acknowledges 

octavo. them two distinct persons. " Fourthly, because both Mr. 
Pryn and Mr. Nicolas had Monsieur S. Giles before them 
in examination, and could not but know him to be a French 
man. As appears by a warrant given to him by Mr. Pryn to 
secure him after his examination. Which warrant follows in 
these words : 

ft These are to certify those whom it may concern, that the 
Committee of the House of Commons, appointed to prose 
cute the Archbp. of Canterbury, have examined and 
received satisfaction from Monsieur S. Giles, a domestic 
servant to the Resident of Venice ; and therefore he is no 
further to be examined or molested concerning the same. 

" This licence came to my hands since my answering was 
past; so I could not then show it. M. S. Giles was never 
the man that gave me notice of any of this ; not so much as 
that he had been examined : but my secretary, Mr. Dell, 
came to hear of it by chance, and went to him, and had this 
copy (with some labour) from him, and will make oath it is a 
true copy. This is not the thankfullest part that ever S. Giles 
played, considering my carriage towards him." 

4. Then they charged upon Monsieur S. Giles directly, 
that I knew him to be a priest, and yet maintained him at 
Oxford/ The case was this a : Mr. S. Giles was in good place 
about the Queen s Majesty at her first coming : here he did 
so good services to this State, that he lost himself in France, 
and durst not go thither when the French were sent away. 
All this while the man was unknown to me, till his Majesty 
one day at S. James s told me this, and that he was a priest, 
and that it lay upon him in honour to allow him some main 
tenance ; and prescribed me a way how to order it, that he 
might receive one hundred marks a year as from him : and 
gave me charge, if the pension were at any time behind, 
I should acquaint him with it. After this, M. S. Giles by his 
friends petitioned his Majesty, that being a stranger, he 

* The seventh Additional. was now produced and read before the 

* The Archbishop related this case Lords. It may be found in Pryn s 
more at large, and therewith defended Compl. Hist. [Cant. Doom,] p. 428.-- 
himself in a written paper ; which II. W. 

being seized by Pryune in the Tower, 


might live in Oxford, to have the use of the library there, Die 
being resolved to meddle (218) no more with the controversies 
of the time ; but to apply himself to metaphysical learning. 
His Majesty was desirous to have him placed in some college, 
to save charges : but this I most humbly deprecated, because 
it might be dangerous to the youth there, and scandalous to 
his Majesty, the Church, and the University; and dangerous 
to myself, being Chancellor. To the rest I submitted : so he 
was left to place himself in some town house, as he could. 
387 And for this his Majesty gave me his warrant, which Mr. Pryn 
in his search took from me. But here follows the true copy 
of it : 

Charles R. 

Canterbury) Mr. S. Giles by serving us and this State, 
hath lost all his hopes in France, and desires to spend his 
time here at his private studies. I would have you think 
upon some way for his maintenance, and to place him in 
Oxford, that he may have use of that library, which he 
much desires. And you may so order it, that his profes 
sion in religion may do no harm. 

And according to this direction of his Majesty, I did take 
order ; but with assurance from himself, and with spies upon 
him there, beside the special care of the Vice-Chancellor, that 
he should not converse with young students, nor exercise his 
priestly office, nor do anything against the laws. Nor did 
I ever hear, that he failed in any of these assumptions. 

5. Then they produced one Mr. Broad, who testified, that 
while S. Giles lived at Oxford, some Doctors came to him V 
Doctors were able to deal well enough with him ; but all 
resort of young scholars was forbidden. He says further, 
that M. S. Giles should say, that the bishops of England 
were cordially of his religion, but that he feared their rigidness 
would spoil all/ First, this is but a report of his speech. 
Secondly, why was not S. Giles at his examination asked, 
whether he said it or no ? And if he did, what ground he 
had for it ? At the most, twas but his opinion of the bishops, 
who were never the more cordial to Popery, for his thinking 

b [Broad particularly specified Dr. Caut. Doom, p. 428.)] 
Turner, and Dr. Johnson. (Prynne, 


Die so. "And thirdly, I doubt it appears by this time, that all 

octavo i overthrown, or near it, not by the rigidness, but by the 
over-remissness of some bishops, who never would believe any 
danger could come from the godly/ as they were called." 

6. Lastly, what s the reason of this great endeavour, upon 
nothing but news in a letter ] , to make S. Clara, and Mr. 
S. Giles, to be one and the same man ? " Doubtless, nothing 
but an hydropical thirst after my blood." For resort of 
priests to Lambeth was usual in both my last predecessors 
times, Bancroft s and Abbot s. And some lay in the house 
and had relief. This was proved to the Lords by two ancient 
servants of that house. Neither of which have been done in 
my time. Arclibp. Abbot made a warrant (this warrant was 
showed 2 ) to secure Mr. Preston, an English priest c , upon a 
command d of King James e : why may not I a French one, 
by the warrant of King Charles ? King James justified 
Bishop Bancroft for doing this, when he was Bp. of London, 
and no privy counsellor : and may not I do it, being Archbp. 
and privy counsellor, with as much privity of the King and 
the State, as he did ? But to let these pass, why should I 
say, here was a thirst for blood ? Fll tell you why ? The 
statute of 27 Eliz. makes it felony without benefit of clergy, 
to maintain or relieve any Romish priest born in England, 
or any other of her Majesty s dominions, knowing him to be 
suchV Now they had laid their Article &, that I had given 
main(219)tenance to Monsieur S. Giles, a popish priest at 388 
Oxford, knowing him to be such. But when, upon examina 
tion of S. Giles, they found him to be a Frenchman, and so 
not within the statute (as the words of that statute are 
most plain, and so is Sir Edw. Coke s judgment upon them 11 , 

1 [ upon nothing ... a letter/ these words underlined.] 

2 [ (this . . . showed) in margin, as a note.] 

c [Father Preston had written seve- ton s condition in prison, and a letter 

ral books in defence of the Oath of of Abp. Abbot to the Attorney-General 

Allegiance, under the name of Roger in favour of some Romish priests, 

"Widdrington. See a memoir of him in Rushworth s Collections, vol. i. pp. 

in Dodd s Church History, vol. ii. p. 241243.] 

420.] f 27 Eliz. cap. 2. 3. 

d Confer, at Hamp. Court, p. 51. * Art. 7. addit. 

[Lond. 1604.] h Lib. iii. Instit. cap. 37. [p. 101. 

e [See a statement relating to Pres- Lond. 1648.] 


botli which I then read to the Lords) I say, when they saw Die 
this, then they cast about how to make S. Clara and Mr. 
S. Giles to be one man i . And though they could find no 
shadow of proof of a thing that is not, but a letter of news 
from Venice/ "yet against their own knowledge and con 
science, they give that in evidence to reach my life any 

Here Mr. Nicolas, so soon as he discovered whither I 
tended, would have broken me off, saying, they did not urge 
it for that now, they were not yet come to it. I replied, if 
they came to it after, I would be at the pains to answer 
again : but since it concerned my life, I would not slip it 
now, nor leave it unanswered in any circumstance. So I 
went on, but they never mentioned it after ; and by this way 
meant certainly to have involved me within the la\v, Clara 
being an Englishman born. " God of His mercy grant, that 
this thirst after my blood lie not too heavy another day upon 
their souls, Mr. Brown in summing up the charge, fell upon 
this also. I made a brief answer out of that which is afore 
said : yet after, in his reply, he fell upon this letter of Mr. 
Middleton s, and cites his news for evidence, that S ta . Clara 
and Mr. S. Giles were the same man. Which I much wonder, 
so able and grave a man as he is, should swallow from Mr. 
Pryn, who doubtless (being present) was angry to see himself 
so laid open in the House of Commons." 

At List came in the last charge of this day : That a cardi- XII. 
nal s hat was offered unto me. My Diary quoted for this, 
at Aug. 4, and 21, 1633 k . I could hinder no offer, unless 
I could prophesy what each man came about, and so shun 
them. But why is not my answer there set down, expressed 
too ? My answer was, That somewhat dwelt in me, which 
would not suffer me to accept that, till Rome were other than 
now it is. Besides, I went presently to his Majesty, and 
acquainted him with it : which is all that the law requires at 
rny hands *. And his Majesty very prudently and religiously 

1 After all, Pryn would insinuate, hath the confidence at last (p. 430) to 

that S. Giles was the same man with add, that it is most apparent. H.W. 

Saucta Clara, and wrote the book inti- k [Works, vol. iii. p. 219.] 

tuled, Deus, Natura, et Gratia, al- l Sir Ed. Coke, lib. iii. Instil, e. 3. 

though he fully knew the contrary, [p. 36. Lond. 1G48. Where it is said 

Compl. Hist. pp. 427, 429. Nay, he to be mispmioii of treason to conceal 


Die (yet in a calm way, the persons offering it, having relation to 

octavo. " s nie ambassador) freed me speedily of that, both trouble 
and clanger. They urged further out of the papers of Andreas 
ab Habernfield (which Mr. Pryn took from me in his search), 
that Signior Con m had power to offer me a cardinal s hat/ 
The words which they cite, are (for I could never get sight of 
those papers since), Mandatum habuit off err e, sed non obtulit n . 
What power he had to make me such an offer, I know not ; 
but themselves confess he did not offer it. Nor had I ever 
any speech with him, during all the time he stayed here. 
I was solicited as much by honourable friends to give him 
admittance to me at Lambeth, with assurance he should speak 
nothing about religion, as ever I had about anything in my 
life . I still refused, and could not persuade myself to do 
other ; and yet could not but inwardly (in verbo sacerdotis, 
this is true 2 ) condemn myself of gross incivility for refusing. 389 
For which yet now I see I am much bound to God for that 
unmannerliness. Had I held a correspondence with him, 
though never so innocent, where had I now been ? Besides, 
I would not have it forgotten, that if { to offer a cardinal s 
hat/ or any like thing, shall be a sufficient cause to make a 
man guilty of treason, it shall be in the power of any Romanist 
to make any English bishop a trai(220)tor when he pleases : 
a mischief not to be endured. And thus this long and tedious 
day ended ; and I had order to attend again on July 24, which 
I did accordingly. 

1 [ as ever 1 ... my life. in margin.] 

2 [ (in verbo ... is true) as a marginal note.] 

a Bull, and that in case of treason in- m [The Pope s nuncio.] 

formation should be given to the King n [See Rome s Master-piece, p. 586 

as soon as possible.] in marg.] 




THIS day they went on with the same Article. And the Die 
first charge was, f my denying the Pope to be Antichrist : the 

proofs; the alteration of the clause in the letters patent for Julii 24, 
the Palatinate ; and the letters between Bp. Hall and me/ Wednes- 
These proofs are answered before a , and repeated here only to dav - 
make a noise. Nor did I in any of these deny the Pope to 
be Antichrist. For, to forbear that word, for some both 
temporal and ecclesiastical respects, is one thing ; and to 
deny the thing itself is another. 

The second consists of a great many particulars, and most II. 
of them urged before, repeated only to help to make the 
ignorant clamorous and wild against me. God forgive them 
this practice. 

1. The first particular was Shelf ord s book: The whole 
Book V And Mr. Pryn very gravely said, that this book 
and the other two following, were found in my study/ Is he 
not yet ashamed of this argument? May I have no book in 
my study, but I must be of the same judgment with the 
author in all things ? The author is altogether unknown to 
me. The book was licensed at Cambridge. So nothing 
faulty in me, but the having of the book in my study. 

2. The second was, Dr. Heylin s book against Mr. Burton. 
This book was printed by my command (they say), and in it 
is a passage for absolute obedience to kings/ p. 129 c . This 
was before also. And I did command the printing of the 
book ; but gave no warrant to put anything unjustifiable into 
it. This passage I caused to be read to the Lords, and the 
Doctor there says no more than what he learned of King 
James in the Conference at Hampton Court d . But if anything 
be amiss, he is ready to answer it. But I find not one word 

a [See above, pp. 308. 312.] brief and moderate answer to the se- 

b [The title of the book is, Five ditious and scandalous charges of 

pious and learned Discourses, by Rob. Henry Burton, c.] p. 129. [Lond. 

Shelford, of Ringsfield in Suffolk, 1637.] 

Priest. Camb. 1635. ] (1 [As quoted by Heylin in the pas- 

c Heylin, cont. Burton, [/. e. A sage referred to above.] 


Die in him, that this absolute obedience ought to be in any- 

thin g that is against law. " That s one of Mr. Nicolas his 

3. The third particular is Bp. Mountague s Appeal, p. 141 c . 
But nothing hence charged upon me, but only, that the book 
was found in my study. I would Mr. Pryn could find any 
books there now. 

4. The fourth was, That divers books of like nature were 39( 
licensed by my chaplains/ But none was of all they then 
named, but Dr. Heylin s, and Sales ; of which your Lps. have 
heard the plot how it came to be licensed f . And for Dr. Heylin, 

he is ready to make all good, which he hath therein done. 

5. The fifth particular is, that the Homilies which are 
authorized in the Church of England, make the Pope Anti 
christ, p. 216 j and the Babylonish beast of Rome/ p. 316 h . 
But, first, this is nothing against me, till it be proved (which 
yet is not done), that I have positively denied the Pope to be 
Antichrist. And, secondly, I do not conceive, that the Ar 
ticle of the Church of England *, which confirms the Homilies, 
doth also confirm every phrase that is in them. Nor, 
thirdly, do I conceive that the Homilies in those places which 
are cited, do make the Pope the great Antichrist. For, in 
the first place, the words are, ( to the beating down of sin, 
death, the Pope, the devil, and all the kingdom of Antichrist : 
which words cannot possibly imply, that the Pope is that 
Antichrist. In the second place, he is only called the Baby- 
lonical beast of Rome / which phrase doth not necessarily 
signify the great Antichrist/ For the beast so often men 
tioned in the Revelation k , is nowhere called the Baby lonical 
beast of Rome. And if that beast do stand for the great 
Antichrist/ (I say if/ because those Scriptures are very dark,) 
then the beast is primarily the Roman empire in the judg 
ment of the Geneva noters l . And that there should be two 
great Antichrists is more than any man hath yet said l . 

1 [ Nor, thirdly, . . . hath yet said. on opposite page.] 

e [ Appello Ceesarcm, &c. p. 141. h [Horn, against Wilful Rebellion, 

Loncl. 1625. Mountague here main- par. vi. p. 510.] 
tains that the Pope is not Antichrist.] 5 Art, 35. Eccl. Ang. 

f [See above, p. 286.] k Cap. xi. 7. 

[Horn, for Whit-Sunday, par. ii. Annot. in Apoc. xvii. 8. 
p. 398. Oxf. 1814.] 


Here Mr. Nicolas was up again with pander to the whore of D 
Babylon/ and his other fonl language ; " not remembering 
all this while (which yet I was loth to mind him of), that one 
of his zealous witnesses against the whore of Babylon/ and 
all her superstitions,, got all his means (which are great) by 
being a pander to other lewd women ; and loved the business 
itself so well, as that he was (not long since, men say) taken 
in bed with one of his wife s maids. Good Mr. Nicolas, do 
not dispense with all whores, save the whore of Babylon." 

6. The sixth particular was, the Articles of Ireland, which 
call the Pope the Man of Sin m / But the Articles of Ireland 
bind neither this Church nor me. And some learned Pro 
testants do not understand (221) that noted place of the 
Apostle, 2 Thess. ii. n , as meant of Antichrist, or the Pope. 

7. The seventh and last particular is, a repetition of Sancta 
Clara and Mr. S. Giles; and the letter of news (which were 
news indeed), to make them one man / though this were 
answered at large but the last day ; and Sir Ed. Hungerford s 
testimony brought up again P. It s a sign Mr. Nicolas hath 
indeed no downright 1 proof (as he said before), that so 
tumbles up and down in repeating the same things. 

The third charge is, that I say in my book, That the reli- III 
gion of the Church of Rome and ours is all one *. This is 
spoken only in opposition to other religions, in regard of 
Christianity. The words are, Nor do the Church of Rome 
and the Protestants set up a different religion ; for the Chris 
tian religion is the same to both/ &c. And the like passage 
to this is in my speech in the Star-Chamber r . And these 
passages were read to the Lords. So that either Papists must 
391 be denied to be Christians, or else this charge can work 
nothing against me. 

The fourth charge is out of Chuneus his book, pp. 45 and 46 s , IV. 

1 [This is written in MS. downright right/ apparently by mistake.] 

111 [Articles agreed upon in the Con- s [The title of the book is, Col- 
vocation at Dublin, 1615, Art. Ixxx. lectiones Theologicarum quarundam 
Wilkins, Cone. torn. iv. p. 453.] Conclusionum ex diversis authorum 

u 2 Thess. ii. sententiis perquam breves sparsim 

[See above, p. 327.] excerpts opera et industria Thomee 
P [See above, pp. 277, 278.] Chounci de Alfristonio in Comitatu 

1 My bookcont. Fisher, p.376. [ 39. Sussexiae Armigeri. Lond. 1(535. The 
num. 3. p. 417. Oxf. 1849.] author s proper name was Thomas 

Pag. 30. [Lond. 1637.] Chowney (Wood, Ath. Ox. ii. 601).] 


Die licensed by my chaplain Dr. Braye l , where (they say) tis 

said, that Rome is a true Church, and differs not in funda 
mentals V And that at the High-Commission/ when this 
book was questioned by some, I did say that the Church of 
Rome and the Protestants did not differ in fundamentals, 
but in circumstances. And this latter part was testified by 
Mr. Burton arid one Mr. Lane, who said they were present. 
First, suppose this be false, and that they do differ in funda 
mentals ; yet this then is my error in divinity, no practice to 
overthrow religion. Secondly, I suppose, if I did so say, 
I did not err : for the foundations of Christian religion are 
the Articles of the Creed, and the Church of Rome denies no 
one of them : therefore there is no difference in the funda 
mentals. If they of Rome differ in exposition of some of 
these, that must needs be a superstructure upon, or beside 
the article, not the article or foundation itself. Nor did I 
follow my own judgment herein, but Calvin s; who says 
expressly, that in despite of Antichrist, the foundations of 
the Church remained in the Papacy itself, that the Church 
might not wholly perish V And this passage was then read 
to the Lords. Thirdly, these two learned witnesses (as they 
would be reputed) are quite mistaken in their very terms. 
For they report me, as if I said, not in fundamentals, but in 
circumstantials whereas these are not membra opposita, but 
fundamentals and superstructures, which may sway quite 
beside the foundation >. And this though not the only, yet 
is a main failing in the Roman fabric; in which many things 
are built upon unwarrantable tradition, as is expressed in my 
book at large z , and their many superstitions named ; and 
that passage read also to the Lords. For though they differ 
not in the prime foundations, yet they in many things grate 
close upon them a , and in some things fall beside them, to no 

1 [The book was licensed by William subverti, vel solo aequari, &c. sed ab 

Hay wood.] ipsa quoque vastatione semirutum 

u ["Nee in pessimis usque eo dege- aedificium superesse voluit." Cal. lib. 

nerasse censcmus, ut in primariis et iv. Inst. cap. ii. 11. [Op., torn. ix. 

fundamentalibus religionis capitibus p. 281. Amst. 1667.] 

aberrasse videantur." Chounei Coll. y Cont. Fisher, 3. [num. 9.] p. 11. 

Theol. Coll. xvi. pp. 45, 46.] [p. 11. Oxf. 1849.] 

x "Quemadmodum . . . saepe diru- z Cont. Fisher, [ 39. num. 4.] p. 

untur gedificia, utfundamentaetruinge 377. [p. 417. Oxf. 1849.] 

maneant ; ita non pas.sus est Ecclesiam " Cont. Fisher, 37. num. 6. p. 320. 

suam ab Antiehristo vel a fundamento [p. 356. Oxf. 1849.] 


small hazard of their own souls l . As for circumstantials/ Die Deci- 
it seems these men have forgotten, or never knew, that many m(hnono - 
times circumstantials in religion do quite destroy the foun 
dation. For example : the circumstances are these : Quis ? 
Quid ? Ubi ? Quibus auxiliis ? Quomodo ? Quando ? 

1. Quid? What a man believes? And that contains 
fundamentals, and in the first place. 

2. Ubi ? Place, a mere circumstance ; yet to deny that 
Christ took our flesh of the B. Virgin, and that in Judea, 
denies the foundation, and is flat Judaism. 

3. Quibus auxiliis, by what helps a man believes, and in 
some measure obeys as he is commanded ? For to believe 
that a man doth this by the strength of nature only, and not 
by aid and assistance of grace, is with the Pelagian to deny 
the foundation, and to overthrow the grace of Christ. 

4. Quando ? When ? That s time, a mere circumstance : 
yet to deny that Christ is already come in the flesh, denies 
the foundation utterly, and is flat Judaism, and an inseparable 
badge of the great Antichrist, 1 John iv. b And in the case of 
the Resurrection, to say tis past already (which is time), 

392 St. Paul tells us, 2 Tim. ii. c , is no less than ( the overthrow of 
the faith/ And the rule is general, that some circumstances 
dant speciem, give the very kind and form to a moral action d . 
(222) " This for their ignorance ; but for the malice of their 
oath, I leave them to God s mercy. Here Mr. Brown, when 
he summed up the evidence against me, fell upon this, and 
said, that when I gave divers instances what dangerous errors 
circumstances did sometimes breed in religion, I gave no 
instance in any point of Popery. But to this I answered, 
first, that it was not material what instances I made, so I was 
able to make some. Secondly, that it was not possible for 
me, or perhaps a readier man, to have all instances so present 
with his memory. Thirdly, if an instance in Popery, rank 
Popery will serve the turn, you may take it in Transubstan- 
tiation. That is either a fundamental point, or it is not. If it 
be not fundamental, why did the Papist put the Protestant 

l [ as is expressed . . . souls. on opposite page.] 

b 1 S. John iv. 3. ciera actui morali." Tho. 1. secundae, 

c 2 Tim. ii. 18. q. Ixxiii. A. 7. ad priraum. 

d "Aliqua circumstantia dat spp- 




Die Deci- to death for it ? And why did the Protestant suffer death ? 
If it be fundamental (as it seems by both sides it was 
accounted) it is upon the bare circumstance of quomodo? 
How Christ is present in the sacrament." 

As for that which was said in the beginning of this charge, 
that Home is a true Church : I ever did, and ever must 
grant it, that such it is veritate entis, in the truth of its entity 
and being. For as I have said against Fisher c , ens et verum, 
being and true/ are convertible one with another. Arid 
everything that hath a being, is truly that being which it is 
in truth of substance; but a right or an orthodox Church 
I never said it was, either in doctrine or manners. As a thief 
is a true man in verity of his essence, that is, he is a creature 
indued with reason ; but it doth not therefore follow that he 
is a true man veritate moris, in his life and conversation. 
" And this I answered first to the Lords, and after to Mr. 
Brown s summary charge, who in his last reply said two 
things : first, that when I said Rome was a true Church, 
I spake it generally without this distinction/ But this is 
quite beyond the proof; for no witness says so. Besides, it 
is manifest by distinction of fundamentals from other doc 
trines (acknowledged by both the witnesses), that I did not 
speak it absolutely, but plain enough to any ordinary under 
standing. Secondly (which I was very sorry to hear from so 
grave a man), he added, that there was no truth of a Church, 
but in the verity of doctrine and manners ; and that in veri 
tate entis a company of Turks were a true Church/ Now 
God be merciful to us, whither are we posting? ; Tis known 
that the Greek word EKK\r)crla, which signifies Church/ 
signifies also in heathen authors, any kind of company or 
congregation of men, Turks if you will. But in ecclesias 
tical writers, and among all Christians, the word Church is 
used only (and so EK/cX^ata too) for a company of men which 
profess the faith of Christ, and are baptized into his name. 
And will any man say that a company of Turks are such a 
Church in veritate entis, in the verity of this being ; as all the 
world knows Papists are ? Or if he will not speak de ente tali, 
but change the suppositum, he may say what he please. But 
I was very much troubled to hear this, and from him." 
c [Contr. Fisher,] 20. [num. 2.] p. 128. [p. 143. Oxf. 1849.] 


I had almost forgot that Mr. Nicolas here pressed the autho- Die Dcci- 
393 rity of the Homilies f upon me again, where tis said, that the m - nono - 
Bishop of Rome and their adherents are not the true Church/ 
But the answer is easy : for I say as the Homily doth, and as 
it means too in that place. Namely, that the Church of 
Rome is not the c true/ that is, not the Catholic Church, 
nor the head thereof. But there is a great deal of differ 
ence between the Church, and a Church / the one is the 
general, the other a particular. The Church it cannot be ; 
a Church it is, and a true one too, in the sense before 
specified l . Upon occasion of this, Mr. Nicolas his mouth 
was open again, and said, f that at the beginning I reckoned 
up some that I had converted : but if this were my opinion, 
and that if this might stand for good, I might convert the 
devil and all/ My ears had been so beaten with his language, 
that I was patient, and left him to insult. And to help on 
this business, while he was in these loud expressions, the 
E. of Pembrook came to Mr. Burton to the bar, and in my 
hearing desired him to repeat the testimony he had given ; 
which Mr. Burton did, and his Lp. seemed to be much pleased 
with it. Not long before, when the news was come hot to 
the House, that York was taken ; when I came at five in the 
afternoon to make my answer, I was no sooner come to the 
bar, but the same Lord came and sat just before me, and 
there with much joy told Mr. Lieutenant the news. I pre 
sume he did it in favour to me, because he thought it would 
put me in very (223) good heart, being then instantly to 
begin to make my answer. God forgive this lord ; for I have 
deserved in my time far better of him, if he understood 
himself, or any man else. 

The next charge was out of Dr. Pocklinton s 2 Altar e Chris- V. 
tianum, pp. 49, 50, where he speaks (they say, for I now have 
not his book 2 ) of a happiness that the bishops of England 
can derive their succession from S.Peter?/ which in great 

I had almost . . . before specified. on opposite page.] 
for I ... book) in margin.] 

f Horn, [for Whit-Sunday] par. 2. could not derive his succession from 

p. 213. [p. 394. Oxf. 1813.] S. Augustine, S. Augustine from S. Gre- 

i[" Miserable were we, if he that gory, S.Gregory from S.Peter." 

now sitteth Archbishop of Canterbury Pocklington s A 1 tare Christianum, 

z 2 


Die Deci- scorn Mr. Nicolas called the ( Archbishop s pedigree. First, 
no * if there be any crime in this, Dr. Pocklinton is to answer it, 
not I. Secondly, he may scorn what he will ; but wise men 
know, tis a great honour to the Church of England, and a 
great stopple in the mouths of the Romanists, that her 
bishops can derive their calling successively from S. Peter ; 
especially considering, how much they stand upon personal 
succession. Thirdly, Dr. Pocklinton in this says no more for 
me and the bishops, than S. Augustin urged for himself and 
his brethren against the Donatists in the same words h , save 
that S. Aug. begins at S. Peter, and descends to his own 
times ; and the Dr. begins at his own time, and ascends to 
S. Peter. " But it seems an upstart Clergy without a calling 
will serve Mr. Nicolas well enough." 

VI. The sixth charge was, That books were written of purpose 
to maintain these opinions ; and such men as writ them only 
preferred/ He named Mr. Shelford 1 , Mr. Butterfield k , Dr. 
Cosins and Dr. Pocklinton. This hath been clamoured upon 
already ; if any have set out unworthy books, they may be 
called to account for it : I hope I shall not answer for all the 
divines in the kingdom. " They whom I preferred, were 
worthy and able men, and it will not be in the power of 
Mr. White s Centuries l , to blast a man of them among any 394 
that know them." For these that are named, Mr. Shelford 
I know not ; Mr. Butterfield I saw punished in the High- 
Commission : neither of them preferred, that I know. " The 
two last, by whomsoever they were preferred, deserved all the 
preferment they had, and more." 

VII. The seventh charge is out of my Diary at June 15, 1632, 
where tis said, that I preferred Mr. Secretary Windebank, 
my old friend m . And here Mr. Nicolas laid all the corre 
spondency open, which (he said) that gentleman had with the 
Pope s agents, with priests and Jesuits, and when he had 

cap. ix. p. 50. 2d Edit. Lond. 1637. passage is given by the Abp.] 

The same passage is in p. 34 of the [See above, p. 333, note b .] 

first edit, published in the same year.] k [The title of Butterfield s book 

u " Petro successit Linus, Lino Cle- was, Maschil, a treatise against H. 

mens, &c. Et sic usque ad Anasta- Burton. Lond. 1629.] 

shim, qui nunc sedet. Et in hoc ordine [In reference to the title of White s 

successionis nullus Donatista Episco- book, The first Century of Malignant 

pus invenitur." S.Aug. Epist. clxv. Priests. ] 

[liii. Ben. Op., torn. ii. coll. 180. C. D. m [Works, vol. iii. p. 215.] 
181. A. The substance only of the 


made him this way as foul as he could, then I must be Die Deci- 
guilty of all, for preferring such a man to the King/ This m - nono - 
gentleman was indeed my ancient friend : in my many years 
acquaintance with him, I saw nothing in him, but honesty 
and worth : if when he was preferred, he deceived my opinion, 
he is living to answer for himself. Many, in all ages, have 
been preferred to princes, which do not answer the hopes and 
desires of them which prefer them ; and yet they not made 
answerable for them neither : but whether he did fail in any 
public trust or no, I am not his judge. Yea; but some 
letters were found from his son Thomas, what entertainment 
he had in foreign parts for his father s sake n . But these 
letters were read to the Lords, and there is not one word in 
them, that relates to me : and tis both likely and fit, the son 
of a Secretary of State should be worthily used in his travels. 
Yea ; but his son Christopher was at Rome, and sent thither 
to insinuate himself with the Pope : so Andreas ab Habern- 
feld writes in the papers which Sir William Boswell sent over 
to me. If he did send his son to that end, then I disco 
vered his plot, for I caused those papers to be examined by 
the King and the Lords, as is .before related. Besides, in my 
poor judgment the Pope must be a very simple man, ("it may 
be Mr. Nicolas thinks him so, compared with himself") that 
a youth of seventeen at the most should insinuate himself to 
fish anything out of him for his father s service. Lastly, he 
pressed, that my interest continued with Mr. Secretary in 
all these courses of his. Tis well known in court the old 
interest did; hot con(224)tinue between us ; but for old friend 
ship s sake, I will not be drawn to say more. As for his 
releasing of any priests/ he must give an account of that 
himself. But for myself, I was so careful in this particular, 
that I never put my hand, though public at Council-table or 
Star-Chamber, to any release in all my time. I might be 
named as present, when such release was made (which I could 
not avoid) but act in any I did not. Nay, I was so careful 
that I refused to set my hand to any licence to travel, lest if 
any young man should be perverted abroad in his travels, 
anything might be imputed to me. And this all the clerks of 

n [SeePrynne sCant.Doom,p.446.] [See Rome s Master-Piece, p. 593 in 
" Qui se insinuaret cum Papa." marg.] 


Die Dcci- the council can witness. " But I see no wariness, no care, can 

no prevent the envy and the malice of the many, and the mighty." 

VIII. The eighth charge was, my correspondence with Popish 

priests/ And for proof of this, they produced divers witnesses! . 

1. The first witness was one Wadsworth, one of the common 
messengers used to attach such persons 01 . He says that 
Smith, alias Fludd r , bragged to him that he had acquaintance 
with me/ Here s nothing but a bragging report of Smith, 
who what he is I know not. So here s no proof. He says, 395 
that four pound was sent to himself to free him out of 
prison, and that Davis told him it came from me. This is 
but a hearsay from Davis, as the former was from Smith. 
But say, my Lords, if I did send him four pound to free him 
out of prison, doth he not now very thankfully reward me for 

it ? The truth is, my Lords, I did send him four pound : 
and the motive that made me send it, was because I heard 
he was a convert from Popery to be a Protestant, and that 
his imprisonment was as much for that as for anything else. 
And this was attested to the Lords, by my servant, Mr. 
Snath 8 , who was one of them that moved me for him. 

2. The second witness was Francis Newton, another mes 
senger. He says, * that when he had taken Hen. Mors, a 
priest t, he should have been carried to a private Committee ; 
that he disliked it, and complained to Mr. Secretary Cook, 
who (he says) sent him to me ; and that when he came to 
Lambeth, Mr. Dell told him I was in my garden with Sir 
Toby Matthew V My servant, Mr. Dell, being appointed my 
solicitor, was now present in court, and denied all this. And 
well he might, for Sir Toby was never in my garden with me 
in all his life. And if Mr. Dell told him that I would not 
meddle in the business/ (as he says he did,) Mr. Dell must 

p [See Prynne s Cant. Doom, pp. alias Loyd. Was this the same person 

449 scq.] with John Floyd, or Fludd, who wrote 

i [James Wadsworth, the author of under the name of Daniel a Jesu ?] 

" The English Spanish Pilgrim." He * [George Snath. He was bequeathed 

was originally a Romanist, being the 50/. by the Archbishop.] 

son of James Wadsworth, mentioned l [Morse appears to have been an 

in Walton s Life of Sir H. Wotton. active and successful emissary. It was 

He afterwards returned to the Church in consequence of a complaint made 

of England, and was employed to by William Haywood that he had 

attach Romish priests. From the drawn off many of the parishioners of 

account Wood gives of him (Ath. Ox. St. Giles, that he was committed to 

iii. 1077,) he was a most disreputable prison. See a letter of G. Garrard in 

character.] Strafford Letters, vol. ii. p. 57.] 

r fl rynne calls him Henry Smith, " [See Works, vol. iii. p. 230, note .] 


give the account for it, not I. Yet if there were a reference Die Deci- 
of this Mors to a private Committee,, the hindering of that m 
was more proper to Mr. Secretary than to me. Howsoever, 
here was no hurt done. For he confesses that Mors was sent 
back to Newgate/ And if (as he further says) he was dis 
charged by Mr. Secretary Windebank x / that is nothing to 
me. He says, he was informed by Stukely y , that Smith, 
alias Fludd z , was acquainted with me/ But if he were but 
informed so himself, that s no proof to inform your Lps. 
He says, c that Brown a priest was dismissed out of the High- 
Commission/ Thus it was : he was called in thither, for very 
foul uncleanness. In process of this business, he there openly 
confessed himself a priest. Hereupon that court sent him to 
Newgate. " What became of him after, I know not, save 
that I know he was strictly examined by Mr. Pym and others 
concerning me." This Newton, upon what grudge I know 
not, calls me rogue, and ail-to naught, in all companies; and 
with so much I acquainted the Lords. 

3. The third witness was Tho. Mayo, a messenger also. 
He says, that Sir Toby Matthew was accounted a priest 
when he was in parts beyond the seas, and that he saw him 
in coach with me, and that he went over with me in my 
barge/ First, I give in two exceptions against this witness. 
One, that he was a man of no conscience, for he had shifted 
his religion from Protestant to Papist, and back again three 
or four times : which was a thing known. The other was, 
that (225) he kept a brothel-house at this present : and that 
his fellow, Wadsworth, knew this, and called him pinking a 
knave, saying, he kept a brace of wenches at this time in his 
house. And these words he spake of him but the fifth of this 
present July, in the Bull tavern in the Palace-yard. So I 
thought him no fit witness. But he was heard for all this. 
" And afterwards, Wadsworth meeting my servant, Mr. Snath, 
he told him, that he did say so to Mayo, and wondered how 
I should come to hear it." Being admitted, and saying as 
he did, I told the Lords, that he began with a very bold oath, 

x [He was discharged June 16, 1637. Rivers was discharged by Windebank s 

(Prynne s Hidden Works, p. 124).] order, April 13, 1635. (Prynne a Hid- 

y [A Romish priest.] den Works, p. 124).] 

z [Prynne calls him Henry Loyd, a [This is the reading in the MS. 

alias Francis Smith, alias Rivers, alias Abp. Sancroft suggested pimping/ 

Simons (Cant. Doom, p. 450). John which "Wharton adopted.] 


Die Deci- and like a shifter of liis religion. For I had four of my 396 
mo-nono. servan ^ s there, three of which l usually attended me, when 
I went and returned from court, Mr. Dell, Mr. Snath, Mr. 
Goodwin b , and Mr. Dobson, and they all attested the contrary; 
and I never went, but one of these at least was with me. 
Besides, he is single in this testimony. He says, that he 
saw Sir Toby several times in my house/ But he confesses 
withal, that he never saw him near me. For my own part 
I cannot say, that ever he was within my doors. But if he, 
or others of his quality, do come to pry out anything in my 
house, how is it possible for me to hinder it ? My porter 
could not see it written in their foreheads, who they were. 
He says, f that one Price was often seen at my house. But 
he doth not say, he was seen with me, or there with my 
knowledge. He says, that one Leander was reported to have 
been my chamber-fellow in Oxford / First, this is but a 
report, and so 110 evidence. Secondly, if he were my chamber- 
fellow in Oxford, when we were boys together, I am sure lie 
was then 110 priest, and he was but a boy when he left the 
college. He confesses, that I gave order to observe who, and 
how many resorted to ambassadors houses, and Sign. Conn s, 
and says, he thought I could prove it. But I believe he would 
never have confessed it, but that he knew I could prove it. 
And thereupon I showed the Lords many papers certifying me 
what numbers were found resorting to each place respectively. 
And Thomas Mayo s hand to many of those papers. He says, 
he took one Peter Wilford and brought him to me to AYhite- 
hall while Sir Jo. Lambe was with me/ But he confesses withal 
that Wilford then showed Mr. Secretary Windebank s warrant 
to discharge him d : and then w r hat could I do to him ? Nay, 
I have some cause to think he would never have apprehended 
him, had he not known he had that warrant. Lastly, he says, 
that once at the Star-Chamber I told him he was too quick 
and nimble for me. And I hope it is no treason if I did say 

1 [ three of which in margin.] 

b [John Goodwyn. He was be- (1 [Peter Wilford had been released 

queathed 101. by the Archbishop. The from prison by Windebank s warrant, 

other persons here mentioned are no- March 23, 16 3. (See Prynne s Hidden 

ticed elsewhere.] \York?, p. 124.)] 

c [See above, p. 317, note d .] 


so. Nor could I mean he was too quick in apprehending Die Deci- 
priests, for I found both him and his fellows after Crossed m 
death slow enough at that : but if I said so, it was because 
I could not tell how to trust his shifting and his wiliness. 

4. The fourth witness was Eliz. Graye, wife to another 
messenger. And this is a very fine witness. For first, she 
says, her husband was committed by my means/ And then 
with a breath she says, she doth not know by whom he was 
committed, but she thinks by Secretary Windebank and me. 
But since she doth not know, but think only, I hope her 
thinking can be no evidence. She says, that she delivered 
me a petition, and that I flung it away, saying, I would not 
meddle with any priest-catching knave/ The witness single, 
and I doubt doating, and the words far from treason. 

5. The fifth witness was John Cooke, a messenger too, and 
one that for his misdemeanor had stood in the pillory. This 
I urged against him, as unfit to witness against me : " my 
witness that saw him in the pillory was so threatened, that 
he sent me word he durst not come. I may not say from 
whom this threatening came." But the thing was so true, 
that Cooke himself confessed it, but excused the cause ; and 
his testimony received. He told how Fisher the Jesuit was 
taken by Graye : that when he was brought to the council- 

397 table, Secretary Cooke and I went to the King to know his 
pleasure about him : that we brought back word from his 
Majesty to the Lords, that he should be banished/ All this 
while here s no hurt done. Then he says, that notwith 
standing this order of his Majesty, Qraye and he met Fisher 
at liberty, by a warrant from Secretary Windebank : that 
(226) hereupon Graye repaired to Secretary Cooke, and to 
me, and that Dell told him I would not meddle with it/ 
My Secretary must answer this, I remember it not. But if 
Mr. Dell received any such answer from me, that I would 
not meddle with it there were two apparent reasons for it. 
One, that I would not meddle with it alone, his Majesty s order 
being to all the Lords. The other, that Fisher was the man I 
had written against, and men would have been apt to say, that 
when I could not answer, I sought means to destroy : so I no way 
fit (alone at least) to meddle with him of all men. He says 
that Graye was committed to the Fleet, for railing on me in 



Die Dcci- my own house. Yet he confesses that he was not committed 
by me. And I presume your Lps. will think there was cause 
of his commitment, if he did rail upon me. And tis con 
fessed by Mr. Pryn (though he had then received no answer 
from myself) that he said he saw now how the game went, 
and hoped ere long to see better days / &c. He says, that 
Smith, al. Fludd, desired Sir Kenelm Digbye f , as he was 
going to Lambeth, to tell me that he could not dine with me 
that day, but desired his business might be remembered. 
No such man ever dined at my table, to my knowledge. And 
if any priest would say so to Sir Kenelm, how could I possibly 
hinder it ? And Sir Kenelm, when this Cooke was examined, 
was a prisoner in Winchester-House ; why was not he ex 
amined to sift out this truth ? If truth be in it. 

6. The sixth witness was John Thresher %, a messenger too : 
he says, that he took Mors and Goodwin h , two priests ; and 
that Secretary Wiiidebank took away his warrant, and dis 
missed them, saying, he would speak with me about it. And 
that when he came to me, I was angry with him about the 
warrant/ Mr. Secretary Windebank will, I hope, be able to 
answer for his own actions. Why he dismissed the priests 
I know not ; but he had great reason to take away his war 
rant : and I a greater reason to be angry with him for it. 
For no warrant can issue from the High-Commission court, 
but under three of their hands at least. Now Thresher, 
having gotten my hand to the warrant, never goes for more 
hands, but proceeds in his office, upon this unwarrantable 
warrant. Had not I reason to be offended at this ? He says, 
that at the same time I said that Graye was an ill-tongued 
fellow, and that if he kept him company, I should not regard 
him/ I had good cause to say this and more, considering 
how Graye had used me. And I believe no Archbishop would 
have borne his words. Lastly, he says, that by a warrant 
from me he arrested Sir Toby Matthewe, and that the Earl of 
Strafford stayed him from going to prison, saying, he should 
answer it before the Lords/ Here by the witness himself it 
appears that I did my duty. And Sir Toby did appear before 

e The Top. Hoy. Favour! t. p. 31. count of this accomplished person.] 

[Lond. 1643.] s [ Thacher. Prynne s Cant. Doom, 

f [It is sufficient to refer to Wood, p. 453.] 

Ath. Ox. iii. 688, for a detailed ac- h [ Gardiner. Prynne, ibid.] 


the Lords, as was assumed 1 lie should. In the meantime, Die Deci- 
I was complained of to the Queen : and a great lady (who m - nono - 
perhaps made the complaint) stood by, and made herself 
398 merry to hear me chid. The Queen was pleased to send to 
the Lords, and Sir Toby was released. Where my fault was 
in all this, I do not yet see. 

7, The last of these famous witnesses was Goldsmith. 
Who says nothing, but that one day before the High-Com 
mission court began, I forewarned the messengers of that 
court of Graye, in regard he was openly spoken against at the 
Council-table. Which, all things considered, I had great 
reason to do. He says likewise, that then Grayed wife ten 
dered me a petition, which I rejected, saying, I would meddle 
with no priest-catching knaves V I think his carriage de 
served no better of me, than to reject his petition : but as for 
the words, I cannot own them ; let the Goldsmith look to it 
that he have not forged them 2 >. And I would very willingly 
know whether, when the Apostle required^ that an accusation 
should not be received against an elder, but under two or 
three witnesses, 1 Tim. v. k , he had any meaning they should 
be such as these ? 

The ninth charge was about the ordering of Popish books IX. 
that were seized, and the disposing of them. The sole witness 
here is John Egerton 1 . He says, these books were delivered 
to Mr. Mattershead, register to the High-Commission. And 
I say so too ; it was the constant course of the High-Commis 
sion, to send them thither, and have them kept in (227) that 
office, till there was a sufficient number of them, and then to 
burn them. Yea, but he adds, that Mattershead told him 
they were re-delivered to the owners : this is but a report, 
and Mattershead is dead, who should make it good. " And 
though this be but a single witness, and of a dead man s 
report, yet Mr. Browne thought fit to sum it up with the rest. 
But surely if any books were re-delivered to the owners, it 
was so ordered by the High-Commission, in regard the books 
were not found dangerous : from me, Mattershead had never 

saying, . . . knaves. in margin.] 
" an to ... forged them. on opposite page.] 

1 [ sayi 

2 [ thai 

1 assured. 1 [See his evidence in Pryune a 

J " Frigidc dictum." W. S. A. C. Cant, Doom, p. 453.] 
k 1 Tim. v. 19. 


Die Deci- any such command." Lastly, he says, he met Sir Toby 
Matthew twice at Lambeth. But he confesses, he never saw 
him with me ; and then me it cannot concern. 
X. The tenth charge was concerning the priests in Newgate ; 
the witnesses are Mr. Deuxel, and Francis Newton m . They 
both agree, and they say, that the priests there had the best 
chambers, and liberty to go abroad without keepers. I hope 
these men do not mean to make the Archbishop of Canter 
bury keeper of Newgate. If any man gave them this liberty, 
he is to be blamed for it, not I, who never knew it till now. 
Nor do either of these witnesses say, that they called on me 
for remedy, or ever did so much as acquaint me with it. 
And they say this was twelve years since ; and I had been 
Archbp. but seven years when I was committed. 
XI. The eleventh charge was about words in my Epistle Dedi 
catory before my book against Mr. Fisher. The words these : 
t For, to my remembrance, I have not given him, or his, so 
much as coarse language 11 / So the charge is because I have 
not given ill words. And here Mr. Nicolas fell foul upon me 
again for taking such care, that the whore of Babylon may 
have nothing but good words, &c. But, first, my Lords, I 
have always thought, and do still, that ill language is no 
proof against an adversary : all the good it can do is, it may 
bring scorn upon the author, and work hardness of heart in 
the adversary, whom he doth, or should labour to convert. 
And this I learned of two eminent fathers in the Church, 399 
Gregory Nazienzen , and S. Augustin P. The first would not 
use it, no not against the Arians, who, as he saith, made 
open war against the Deity of Christ. Nor would the other 
against the same adversaries. The one accounts it ignorance, 
though a fashion taken up by many : and the other loss of 
time. And here I desired the Lords, that I might read what 
immediately followed this passage, which was granted: and 
there, as their Lps. did, so may the reader see, if he please, 
that though my words were not uncivil, yet in the matter 

ni [See Prynne s Cant. Doom, p. 450.] Greg. Naz. Oral, xxxii. [Op., torn. i. 

" [Works, vol. ii. p. x.] p. 518. B.] 

[Ov -yap diraifevTcas Tra.i8evoiJi.fv, oi5Se v " Abstineamus nos a conviciis, ne 

TCUS Vftpfffi )8aAAo/,ie*/, oirep irdo xovcnj tempos inaniter impendamus," &c. 

ol TroAAol, K.T.A.] " Non imperite do- Aug. Epist. clxxvii. [ccxli. Ben. Op., 

cemus, nee adversaries contumeliis lorn. ii. col. 1314. A.] 
incessimus, ut plerique fuciunt," &c. 


I favoured neither him, nor his. And to avoid tediousness, Die Deci- 
thither I refer the reader. With this, that sometimes men, m - nono - 
apt enough to accuse me, can plead for this moderation in 
their own cases, and tell each other that c Christ will not own 
bitterness in maintaining any way, though consonant to his 
word q / And another finds just fault both with Papists, 
and Martin Mar-Prelate, for this reproachful language V 
And yet it must be a crime in me not to use it. 

The last charge was the commitment of one Ann Hussy XII. 
to the Sheriff of London s . The business was this. She sent 
one Philip Bambridge to tell me of I know not what plot 
against the King (nor I think she neither). Bambridge 
came to White- Hall toward the evening, and could make 
nothing of this dangerous plot. Yet because it pretended so 
high, I sent him presently to Mr. Secretary Windebank ; 
I being the next morning to go out of town. The business 
was called to the Council-table. When I came back, I was 
present there. Bambridge produced Ann Hussy, but she 
could make nothing appear. She says, I thought she was 
out of her wits/ Not so, my Lords ; but I did not think she 
was well in them ; nor do I yet. And whereas she complains 
of her imprisonment/ it was her own desire she might be 
committed to the sheriff; and Mr. Hearn (my counsel here 
present) was assigned by the Lords to take her examination. 
Therefore if any par(228)ticular in this charge stick with your 
Lps., I humbly desire Mr. Hearn may supply my want of 
memory. But it passed over, as well it might. Here this 
day ended, and I was ordered to attend again, July 29. 

i In the Antiquaeries to Mr. Pryn, r Sidr. Simpson s Anatomist, pp. 2 

p. 12. [" Certain briefe Observations and 6. [This book is not in the Bod- 

and Antiquseries on Master Prin s leian Library.] 

Twelve Questions about Church Go- s [See Prynne s Cant. Doom. p. 459.1 
vernment. 1644."] 


CAP. XLIL 400 


Julii 29, THIS day I appeared again, and they proceeded upon the 

Mcfnday fourteenth Original Article, which follows in these words : 


Vicesimo. Art. 14. That to preserve himself from being questioned for 
these, and other his traitorous courses ; he hath laboured 
to subvert the rights of Parliaments, and the ancient 
course of parliamentary proceedings, and by false and 
malicious slanders to incense his Majesty against Par 
liaments. By which words, counsels, and actions, he 
hath traitorously, and contrary to his allegiance, 
laboured to alienate the hearts of the King s liege people 
from his Majesty, to set a division between them, and 
to ruin and destroy his Majesty s kingdoms. For which 
they do impeach him of high treason against our sove 
reign lord the King, his crown and dignity. 

j. The first charge of this day was prefaced with a note out 
of my Diary, at May 8, 1626, that the Duke of Buckingham 
was that day impeached to the Lords by the House of Com 
mons a . And at May 25, The difference arising in the 
House of Peers about the Earl of ArundePs commitment to 
the Tower without a cause declared V No use made of these, 
but that I then Bp. of S. David s took notice of these things c . 
Then the charge followed ; and the first of it was 1 , that 
I then being of the Lords House, and so to be one of the 
Duke s judges, made a speech for him, and corrected his 
speech in some particulars ; and of a judge made myself an 
advocate. Which Mr. Nicolas said was a great offence. 
I saw not these papers, and therefore can say nothing, what 

1 [ and . . . was/ in margin.] 

a [Works, vol. iii. p. 190.] c See Heylin s Life of Archbishop 

b [Ibid. p. 191.] Laud, p. 152. 


is, or is not under my hand. But to the thing itself, I say, Die 
first, that if in that speech any particular fault had been Vlcesimo - 
found, impeaching any right or power of Parliament, that 
I must have answered; but none is charged, but only the 
bare making of one speech, and the mending of another. 
And this is a very poor argument of any enmity against 
Parliaments. Secondly, seeing no fault is charged upon me 
in particular, it was but the office of a poor friend, to a great 
one, to whom being so much bound as I was, I could not 
refuse so much service, being entreated to it. And, thirdly, 
I do humbly conceive, that so long as there was nothing done 
against law, any friend may privately assist another in his 
difficulties. And I am persuaded, many friends in either 
House, do what they justly may, when such sad occasions 
happen. " And this answer I gave to Mr. Brown, when he 
summed up my charge in the House of Commons. 

" But Mr. Brown did not begin with this, but with another, 
here omitted by Mr. Nicolas ; though he had pressed it before 
401 ill the fifteenth day of my hearing. Dr. Potter writ unto me 
for my advice in some passages of a book writ by him, (as 
I remember, against a book intituled c Charity Mistaken/) 
I did not think it fit to amend anything with my own pen ; but 
put some few things back to his second thoughts, of which 
this was one, that if he express himself so, he will give as 
much power to the Parliament in matters of doctrine, as to 
the Church V This, Mr. Brown said, took away all authority 
from Parliaments, in that kind. But, under favour, this takes 
away nor all, nor any that is due unto them. Not all, for 
my words are about giving so much power : now he that 
would not have so much given to the one, as the other, doth 
not take away all from either. Not any that is due to them : 
for my words not meddling simply with parliamentary power 
(as appears by the comparative words so much ), my inten 
tion must needs be to have Dr. Potter so to consider of his 
words, as that that which is proper to the (229) Church 

d [See the Archbishop s Letter, Oct. ration." It was printed first in 1633, 

18, 1633. Potter s letter, to which and again in 1634. It was written in 

this was a reply, is given by Prynne, reply to Knott s book, called " Charity 

Cant. Doom, p. 251. The title of Pot- Mistaken." (Wood, Ath. Ox. iii. 181.) 

ter s book is, " Want of Charity justly See above, p. 279, and also Archbishop 

charged on all such Komanists as dare Laud s History of his Chancellorship, 

affirm that Protestancy destroyeth Sal- Works, vol. v. p. 165, note J.] 


Die might not be ascribed to Parliaments. And this I conceive is 

plain in the very letter of the law. The words of the statute 
are, f Or such as shall hereafter be ordered, judged, or deter 
mined to be heresy, by the High Court of Parliament in this 
realm, with the assent of the Clergy in their Convocation 6 . 
Where tis manifest, that the judging and determining part, 
for the truth or falsehood of the doctrine, is in the Church. 
For the assent of the Church or Clergy cannot be given but 
in Convocation, and so the law requires it. Now, assent 
in Convocation cannot be given, but there must precede 
a debate, a judging, a voting, and a determining. Therefore 
the determining power for the truth or falsehood of the 
doctrine, heresy, or no heresy, is in the Church : but the 
judging and determining power for binding to obedience, 
and for punishment, is in the Parliament, with this assent of 
the Clergy. Therefore I humbly conceive, the Parliament 
cannot by law, that is, till this law be first altered, determine 
the truth of doctrine without this assent of the Church in 
Convocation ; and that such a Synod and Convocation, as is 
chosen and assembled as the laws and customs of this realm 

" To this Mr. Brown, in his reply upon me in the House 
of Commons, said two things. The one, that this branch 
of the statute of 1 Eliz. was for heresy only, and the adjudg 
ing of that : but meddled not with the Parliament s power in 
other matters of religion/ If it be for heresy only, that the 
Church alone shall not so determine heresy, as to bring those 
grievous punishments which the law lays upon it upon the 
neck of any subject, without determination in Parliament; 
then is the Church in Convocation left free also in other 
matters of religion, according to the first clause in Magna 
Charta, which establishes the Church in all her rights. And 
her main and constant right, when that charter was made 
and confirmed, was power of determining in matters of 
doctrine and discipline of the Church. And this right of 
the Clergy is not bounded or limited by any law, but this 
clause of 1 Eliz., that ever I heard of. 

" The other was, that if this were so, that the Parliament 
might not meddle with religion, but with the assent of the 
e 3 Eliz. cap. 1. 


402 clergy in Convocation, we should have had no Reformation. Die 

For the Bps. and the clergy dissented/ First, it is not (as Vicesimo - 
I conceive) to be denied, that the King and his High Court 
of Parliament may make any law what they please, and by 
their absolute power may change religion, Christianity into 
Turkism if they please (which God forbid). And the subjects 
whose consciences cannot obey, must fly, or endure the 
penalty of the law. But both King and Parliament are sub 
graviori regno, and must answer God for all such abuse of 
power. But beside this absolute, there is a limited power ; 
limited, I say, by natural justice and equity, by which no 
man, no court, can do more, than what he can by right 1 . 
And according to this power, the Church s interest must be 
considered, and that indifferently, as well as the Parliament s. 
To apply this to the particular of the Reformation. The 
Parliament in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth would not 
endure popish superstition, and by absolute power abolished 
it, without any assent of the clergy in Convocation. And 
then in her first year, an. 1559, she had a visitation 11 , and 
set out her Injunctions 1 , to direct and order such of the 
clergy as could conform their judgments to the Reformation. 
" But then so soon, as the clergy was settled, and that a 
form of doctrine was to be agreed upon, to show the difference 
from the Roman superstition, a synod was called, and in the 
year 1562 the Articles of Religion were agreed upon, and 
they were determined and confirmed by Parliament, with 
the assent of the clergy in Convocation; and that by a just 
and orderly power. Nor is the absolute power of King and 
Parliament any way unjust in itself, but may (230) many 
ways be made such, by misinformation, or otherwise. And 
this gives the King and the Parliament their full power, and 
yet preserves this Church in her just right. Just and 
acknowledged by some that loved her not over well. For 
the Ld. Brook tells us, That what a Church will take for 
true doctrine, lies only in that Church V Nay, the very 

f "Id possumus quod jure possumus." h [See the Visitation Articles in 

[See Gloss, on Decret. Par. ii. Caus. the first year of Queen Elizabeth, in 

xxii. Queest. ii. cap. xv. Faciat. ] Wilkins Cone. torn. iv. pp. 189 191.] 

By the advice of her Honourable [See the Queen s Injunctions, ibid. 

Council. Prefat. to the Injunctions, pp. 184189.] 

[Wilkins Cone. torn. iv. p. ]84.] k Discourse, [opening the nature of 

LAUD. VOL. iv. A A 


Pie heathen saw clearly the justice of this : for M. Lucullus was 

esimo. a | ) j e to say | n T u iiy^ ( tnat t ^ G p r i es ts were judges of religion, 

and the senate of law V )} 

TI. The second proof is, that I made two speeches for the 
King, to be spoken or sent to the Parliament that then was ; 
and that they had some sour and ill passages in them" 1 / These 
speeches were read to the Lords ; " and had I now the copies, 
I would insert them here, and make the world judge of 
them 11 ." First, I might shuffle here, and deny the making 
of them : for no proof is offered, but that they are in my 
hand ; and that is no necessary proof : for I had then many 
papers by me written in my own hand, which were not my 
making, though I transcribed them, as not thinking it fit to 
trust them in other hands. But secondly, I did make them, 
and I followed the instructions which were given me as close 
as I could to the very phrases ; and being commanded to the 
service, I hope it shall not now be made my crime that I was 
trusted by my sovereign. Thirdly, as I did never endeavour 
to embitter the King this way, so the smart passages which 
Mr. Nicolas says are there, I hope will not be thought such, 
when tis considered whose mouth was to utter them, and 403 
upon what occasion : yet if such they shall be thought, I am 
heartily sorry for them, and humbly desire they may be 
passed by : howsoever, they can make no proof that I am an. 
enemy to Parliaments. " And this answer I gave Mr. Brown 
in the House of Commons, for he there omitted it not." 
III. The third proof that I am an enemy to Parliaments is the 
testimony of one Mr. Bland. A forward witness he hath 
been against me in other particulars. Here he says, f that 
Sir Sackvil Crowe showed him a paper, in which were fifteen 
or sixteen passages concerning Parliaments, with some sour 
aspersions to boot; and that this paper was subscribed, 
W. Laud/ First, my Lords, this man is but a single witness. 
Secondly, he says, he had this paper from Sir Sackvil Crowe ; 

that Episcopacie which is exercised in house.] 

England. By Robert Lord Brooke,] m See the Diary, at March 26, 29, 

sect. 1. c. ix. p. 51. [Lond. 1641.] May 11, anno 1626. H. W. [Works, 

1 "Religionisjudices pontifices sunt, vol. iii. pp. 185, 186, 190.] 

legis senatus." Cic. lib. iv. Epist. ad n [See the two Speeches of the King 

Att. Ep. 2. [This is quoted from a in llushworth s Collections, vol. i. pp. 

speech of Lucullus in the senate on 221, 225, 357.] 
the question about restoring Cicero s 


and he is now in Turkey , and cannot be produced, that Die 
the truth may be known. Thirdly,, as I never gave Sir Vlcesimo - 
Sackvil any such paper, so had he come by any such, tis 
more than probable somebody else might have seen it beside 
Mr. Bland, to make a second witness. Fourthly, this is a 
very bold oath ; for he swears, the paper was subscribed with 
my own hand, W. Laud : whereas, I being then Bishop of 
S. David s, never writ my name to anything other tlmn 
Guil. Meneven. Let him bethink himself of this oath, Ne 
quid yravius dicam. Besides, it may be considered too, that 
this, with some particulars mentioned by Mr. Bland, was 
charged in the first Additional Article, and now brought in 
upon the fourteenth Original ; partly to confound me, that 
I might not see how, or against what, to defend myself; and 
partly to make me secure, because they had quite passed over 
the first Additional?: but especially, because they had therein 
charged me, that these propositions of mine had caused that 
Parliament to be dissolved : and yet in the same Article, 
and within three lines, tis said expressly, that my proposi 
tions were delivered to my L. Duke of Buckingham after that 
Parliament was dissolved. " So this Article hangs as well 
together as Mr. Bland s testimony concerning it. Mr. Brown 
pressed this also hard against me ; but I answered according 
to the sum of that which is above written." And as for the 
particular said to be in that paper, (were it mine, as it is not,) 
or were the words thought treasonable, (as well they cannot 
be,) 1 yet the (231) statute of Queen Mary makes it, that no 
words, nor writings, nor cipherings, nor deeds, shall be treason, 
but only such as are within the statute of 25 Edw. III., and 
no other ( i. And this statute I then read to the Lords, though 
I conceive there was no need of it. 

The fourth proof was out of my Diary, at June 15, 1620. IV. 
The words these : Post multas agitationes privata malitia in 
Ducem Buckinghamia superavit et suffocavit omnia publica 
negotia ; nihil actum est, sed Parliamentum solutum V And 

1 [ thought treasonable .... cannot be, on opposite page. Originally, 
treasonable, as they are not, ] 

[Where he was ambassador. See p. 33.] 
Rymer, Feed. VIII. iv. 68.] 1 Marias, c. i. 3. 

P Artie. 1. Additional. [See above, r [Works, vol. iii. p. 192. 

\ \ ^ 

A A & 


Die this was applied first by Mr. Nicolas, and after by Mr. Brown,, 

mo * ( as if I had charged this private malice upon the Parliament. 
But this is utterly mistaken : for I spake not this of the 
Parliament, but of some few particular men, some of the 
House, " men well enough known to the world ;" and more, 
not of the House, but sticklers at large, who went between, 
and did very ill offices, and so wronged both the King and 
the Parliament ; which is no new thing in England. That 
my words there cannot be meant of the Parliament, is two 
ways apparent. First, in that I say, privata malitia private 404 
malice did it ; but name not the Parliament, nor charge any 
thing upon it. Secondly, because, had I spoken this of the 
Parliament, it could not have been called private, but public 
malice ; nothing being more public in this kingdom than 
what is done in and by the Parliament. 

V. The fifth proof was, that a proclamation for calling in of 

the Remonstrance was found in my study : and Mr. Nicolas 
said, they conceived I had a hand in it/ It was as lawful 
for me to have and keep this proclamation, as for any other 
subject. And their conceit that I had a hand in it is no 
proof. Mr. Nicolas says, that my preferments followed very 
quick upon this/ and infers, that I was preferred for my 
ill services in this kind/ But all the proof that he brings 
for this his uncharitable inference is the comparing of the 
times ; and I shall be content to be tried by that. For by 
his own acknowledgment, this proclamation came out June 
16, 1622, I being then Bp. of S. David s ; and he confesses 
I was not made Bishop of Bath and Wells till June 20, 1626, 
full four years after ; nor a Privy-counsellor till April 29, 
1627, which was five years after. Whereas rewards for 
such services are found to come much quicker. " And 
Mr. Brown, when he made his summary charge, slighted 
this, and passed it over." 

VI. The sixth 1 proof of my enmity to Parliaments was a 

paper of reasons, Mr. Nicolas said, f against Parliaments/ 
But first, when this paper was showed and read to the Lords, 
it was found otherwise, and was but a paper of hopes and 
fears, which were conceived of a Parliament : 3 not reasons 

1 [The Archbishop, in mistake, makes this but the fifth proof, though he 
originally wrote 6, and continues the mistake through the remaining proofs.] 


against them. Secondly, these fears and hopes were not of Die 
a Parliament then in being, but of one in deliberation, whether 
it should be or not at that time ; which all men know is often 
disputed, and without offence. And any considering man 
may privately do it, for his own use and trial of his judg 
ment 1 . Thirdly, in this deliberation, I was not the author 
of these fears and hopes, but an amanuensis to higher powers, 
in regard their hands were slower ; though commanded also 
to set down my own opinion, which I did. Fourthly, I was 
then either a counsellor, or a sworn servant to the King, and 
required upon my oath to deliver truly, both my fears and 
my hopes ; and I durst not perjure myself. And I hope the 
keeping of my oath, and doing my duty in that kind, shall 
not now prejudice my life. Fifthly, these fears and hopes, 
whatever they contain, did relate to the being or not being 
of that one Parliament only 2 , as appears in the very paper 
itself; and the hopes prevailed, and that Parliament sate. 
" And this answer I gave to Mr. Brown, who made all the 
use of this paper that could be against me." 

Here Mr. Nicolas brings in Mr. Bland again, who says, 
that the four last heads in this paper were in that paper also 
which was showed him/ This single witness hath an excellent 
memory, that can remember four heads of a paper punctually 
sixteen years ago. I asked why he did not complain of me 
then, when his memory was fresher, and his witness, Sir 
Sackvill Crowe, nearer. Twas replied, he durst not for my 
(232) greatness/ Why, but he knows well enough, that 
Parliaments, when they have a just cause of proceeding, do 
405 neither fear nor spare any man s greatness. And is it 
probable, that they which spared not the Duke of Bucking 
ham s greatness, would have feared mine, being then a poor 
Bishop of Bath and Wells ? And a Parliament was held 
again in the very next year, 1627. So that he wanted not 
opportunity to complain. Nor can I believe any opinion of 
my supposed greatness stopped him. Let him look into 

Then Mr. Nicolas told the Lords with great vehemeiicy, 
what, venom there was in this paper, which he said was in 

1 [ And any . . . judgment in margin.] 

2 [A passage is here erased, so as to be illegible.] 


Die every particular. A right spider I see now he is, venom out 

Yicesimo. of anytning . 

Here is a void space left, I suppose with design to have the 
paper (here mentioned] to be inserted. Which was not done. 

VII. (233) The seventh 1 proof was out of my Diary at March, 
1628. Where the words are, that the Parliament which 
was dissolved March 10, 1628, sought my ruin 8 / "This 
had been a better argument to prove Parliaments an enemy 
to me, than me to them." But nothing can be meant by 
this, but that my ruin was sought in that Parliament by 
some particular men, whose edge was too keen against me. 
And this appears in my Diary at June 14 preceding 1 ; at 
which time I was put into a Remonstrance, which, had I been 
found any way guilty, must needs have ruined me. But by 
God s blessing, the very same day I did clearly acquit myself, 
in open Parliament, of all the aspersions cast upon me about 
Dr. Manwaring s Sermons. " This particular Mr. Brown 
charged upon me, and I answered as before. But Mr. Nicolas 
did not touch upon it this day." 

VIII. The eighth proof, that I was an enemy to Parliaments, was 
taken from some marginal notes, which I had made upon a 
printed speech of Sir Benjamin Rudyard s, which he spake in 
the Parliament held an. 1627. Mr. Nicolas named four; 
but Mr. Brown in summing up my charge, insisted only 
upon two : the word ( reducing ; and the aim of gaining 
from the King. Sir Benjamin Rudyard is my old acquaint 
ance, and a very worthy member of that House, both now 
and then 11 . But be a man never so worthy, may he not use 
some phrase amiss ? Or if he do, may not I or another 
observe, yea check at it, but by and by I must be an enemy 
to Parliaments ? Is there any argument in this ; I said a 
gentleman in the House of Commons used an ill phrase in 
a speech of his in that House, therefore I am an enemy to 
the Parliament in which he spake it ? Say I am mistaken, 
1 [This is called The sixth proof in the MS. See above, p. 356.] 

s [Works, vol. iii. p. 210.] In the Parliament of 1640 he sat for 

1 [Ibid. p. 208.] Wilton. The speech referred to in 

u [Sir B. Rudyard was educated at the text seems to be the one entitled, 

St. John s College, Oxford. He was A Speech whereby he acted the part 

appointed Surveyor of the Court of of a Moderator, &c. (Wood, Ath. Ox. 

Wards and Liveries in March, 16i|. iii. 455, 456.)] 


and not he, and that the phrase is without exception ; yet Die 
this is hut my error in judgment, 110 proof of enmity, either 
to the Parliament, or him that spake it. That which I said 
was this. First, that the word " reducing/ as there placed, 
was a hard phrase/ Let any man view that speech con 
siderately, and tell me whether it be not so. Secondly, that 
I disliked the word " gaining," being between the King 
and his people in Parliament/ For (as I humbly conceive) 
there will always be work enough for both to join for the 
public good ; and well it can never be, if they which should 
so join, do labour only to gain one from another. For if 
the King shall labour to gain upon the liberty or property 
of the subject, or the subjects in Parliament labour to 
gain from the just power and prerogative of the King; can 
406 any prudent man think the public can thrive therewhile ? 
Yea, but they say, that my marginal note upon this phrase 
was, that this gaining was the aim of the lower House/ If 
my note be so, yet that cannot be otherwise understood, 
than that according to this expression, this must be their 
aim. " And the reason why I found fault with the phrase 
was, because I saw this must follow out of it. So, under 
favour, I w r as not so bold with this gentleman, as he was with 
the House in using this speech/ 

The next proof was, that I found fault with eight bills IX, 
that were then in the House/ This is a very poor proof of 
my enmity to Parliaments, that I disliked some bills pro 
posed in them : though there be no proof of this urged at 
all, save only, that I writ the time May 27, 1628, upon the 
paper where the bills were mentioned/ And I hope, to 
mention the time when any bills were proposed, is not to 
dislike the bills. But say I did dislike them, what then? 
It is lawful for any member of the House (and such was 
I then) to take exceptions which he thinks are just l against 
any bill, before it pass. And shall not that which is lawful 
for any man to do, be lawful for me ? Beside, almost all bills 
are put in by private persons. The House is not interessed 
in them, till they arc passed and voted by them : so that 
till then, any man may spend his judgment upon the bill, 

1 [ which he thinks are just in margin.] 


!>j e . without any wrong at all to the Parliament. " Mr. Brown 
saw this well enough, and therefore vouchsafed not so much 
as to name it." 

X. The tenth proof was, that I made an answer to the 
Remonstrance set out by Parliament, an. 1628. This was 
pressed before x . (234) And here tis laid hold of on all hands; 
to make as full a cry as it can against me. " Mr. Nicolas 
presses it here aloud, (as he doth all things,) and Mr. Brown 
lays it close in summing up the charge." My answer the 
same to both. 1 . First, they charge me, that I made that 
answer to the Remonstrance which came forth, an. 1628. 
I did this by the King s command, and upon such instruc 
tions as were given me. And as I obeyed the command, so 
did I closely pursue my instructions. And I durst do no 
other, for I was then upon my oath as a sworn counsellor, 
and so employed in that service. And I hope no man will 
conceive, that I would without such a command have under 
taken such a kind of service. 2. Yea, but they say, it doth 
not appear that I had any such command/ Yes, that 
appears as plainly as that I made it. For they bring no 
proof that I made it, but because the indorsement upon that 
paper 1 is in my hand, and calls it my answer. And the same 
indorsement says, I made it by his Majesty s command. 
So either the indorsement is no sufficient proof for the one, 
or if it be, tis sufficient for both ; and must needs witness 
the one for me, with the same strength that it doth the other 
against me. For a kind of confession that indorsement is, 
and must therefore not be broken, but be taken with all its 
qualities. 3. Thirdly, they say, there are some sour and 
bitter passages in the answer/ Tis more than I perceived, 
if it be so. Nor was any sourness intended. And I hope no 
such passages found in it, the person considered, in whose 
name the answer was made. The expressions, indeed, might 
have been too big for a subject s mouth. 4. Fourthly, they 
say, I was displeased that this answer was not printed ; 
but all the proof they brought for it is, ( that it is written 407 
upon the paper, that there was an intention to print it, but 
1 [ upon that paper in margin.] 

[See above, p. 272.] 


that I know not what hindered it. " But this argument can Die 
never conclude : John a Nokes knows not who hindered the 
printing of a Jewish Catechism in England; therefore he 
was displeased the Catechism was not printed. But I see 
every foot can help trample him that is down." Yea, but 
they instanced in three particulars, which they charged 
severally upon me. 1. The first particular was, that by 
uMs Remonstrance, they sought to fill our people s hearts 
niOiO than our ears. 2. A second was, e that they swelled to 
that bigness, till they brake themselves. But neither of 
these strike at any right or privilege of Parliaments; they 
only tax some abuses, which were conceived to be in the 
miscarriage of that one Parliament. And both these parti 
culars were in my instructions. And though I have ever 
honoured Parliaments, and ever shall, yet I cannot think 
them infallible. General Councils have greater promises 
than they, yet they may err. " And when a Parliament, by 
what ill accident soever, comes to err, may not their King 
tell them of it? Or must every passage in his answer be 
sour, that pleases not ? And for that Remonstrance, whither 
it tended let the world judge, the office is too dangerous for 
me." 3. The third particular was the excusing of Ireland, 
and the growth of Popery there, of which that Remonstrance, 
an. 1628, complained/ This was in the instructions too. 
And I had reason to think, the King and his Council under 
stood the state of Ireland, for religion and other affairs, as 
well as other men. And I was the more easily led into the 
belief, that religion was much at one state in Ireland, in 
Queen Elizabeth s and King James his time, and now; 
because ever since I understood anything of those Irish 
affairs, I still heard the same complaints that were now made. 
For in all these times they had their Romish hierarchy; 
submitted to their government; payed them tithes; came 
not to the Protestant churches ; and rebelled under Tyrone 
under pretence of religion. And I do not conceive they have 
gone beyond this now. " If they have, let them answer it 
who have occasioned it." But to prove this great new 
growth of Popery there, they produced, first, a proclamation 
from the State in Ireland, dated April 1, 1629 y ; then a 
[See Prynne s Hidden Works, pp. 100, 101 ; and Cant. Doom, p. 435.] 


Die letter of the Bp. of Kilmore s to myself, dated April 1, 

Yicesimo. 16 3Q Z .> thirdly, <a complaint made to the State there, 
an. 1633 a , of this growth, so that I could not but know it. 
Most true, when these informations came I could not but 
know (235) it : but look upon their date, and yon shall find 
that all of them came after this answer was made to the 
llemonstrance, and therefore could not possibly be foreseen 
by me, without the gift of prophecy. Then they produced 
a letter of the Earl of Strafford s, in which he communi 
cated to me, Mar. 1633, that to mould the Lower House 
there, and to rule them the better, he had got them to be 
chosen of an equal number of Protestants and Papists V 
" And here Mr, Maynard, who pressed this point of religion 
hard upon me, began to fall foul upon this policy of the 
Earl of Strafford, and himself yet brake off with this, But 
he is gone/ i: Then he fell upon me as a man likely to 
approve those ways, because he desired the letter might be 
communicated to me. This letter was not written to me, as 
appears by the charge itself: for if it had, no man else 
needed to communicate it to me. And I would fain know, 408 
how I could help any of this ? If that lord w r ould write any 
thing to me himself, or communicate anything to another 
that should acquaint me with it 1 j was it in my power to 
hinder either of these ? And there were other passages in 
this letter, for which, I conceive, his Lp. desired the com 
munication of that letter to me, much more than the parti 
cular urged, which could no way relate unto me. "And 
Mr. Brown in his sum said very little, if anything, to this 
business of Ireland." 

XI. After this Mr. Nicolas, who would have nothing forgotten 
that might help to multiply clamour against me, fell upon 
five particulars, which he did but name, and left the Lords 
to their notes. Four of these five were handled before. As 
first, the words, If the Parliament prove peevish c . Secondly, 

1 [ that should . . . with it; in margin.] 

z [See Prynne s Hidden Works, pp. b [See Prynne s Hidden Works, p. 

101, 102, and Cant. Doom, p. 436.] 118; and Strafford Letters, vol. i. 

a [Prynne s Hidden Works, pp. 110, p. 186.] 

Ill ; arid Strafford Letters, vol. i. pp. c [See above, p. 69.] 
150, 151.] 


f that the King might use his own power 1( V Thirdly, the Die 
violation of the Petition of Right V Fourthly, the Canons V Viccsirno - 
Fifthly, that I set spies about the election of Parliament- 
men in Gloucestershire ; and for this last, they produced a 
letter of one Allibon to Dr. Heylin s. To the four first, 
I referred the Lords to their notes of my answers, as they 
did. To this last, that Mr. Allibon is a mere stranger to me, 
I know not the man. And tis not likely I should employ 
a stranger in such a business. The letter was sent to Dr. 
Heylin, and if there w 7 ere any discovery in it of jugglings there 
in those elections (as too often there are) ; and if Dr. Heylin 
sent me those letters, as desirous I should see what practices 
are abroad ; what fault is there in him or me for this ? 

Then Mr. Nicolas would not omit that which he thought XII. 
might disgrace and discontent me, though it could no way 
be drawn to be any accusation. Twas out of my Diary, at 
Oct. 27, 1640, this Parliament being then ready to begin. 
The passage there is, That going into my upper study to 
send away some manuscripts to Oxford, I found my picture 
which hung there privately, fallen down upon the face, and 
lying on the floor ; I am almost every day threatened with 
my ruin, God grant this be no omen of it V The accident 
is true ; and having so many libels causelessly thrown out 
against me, and hearing so many ways as I did, that my ruin 
was plotted, I had reason to apprehend it. But I appre 
hended it without passion, and with looking up to God, that 
it might not be ominous to me. " What is this man angry 
at ? Or why is this produced ? " 

But though I cannot tell why this was produced, yet the XIII. 
next was urged only to incense your Lps. against me : Tis 
in my Diary again, at Feb. 11, 1640 ^ Where Mr. Nicolas 
says confidently, I did abuse your Lps., and accuse you of 
injustice. My Lords, what I said in my Diary appears not; 
if it did appear whole and altogether, I doubt not but it 
alone would abundantly satisfy your Lps. But that passage 

1 [Here is a small slip of paper attached to the margin, with hitherto I am 
gon written on it in Wharton s hand.] 

(1 [See above, p. 71.] John Allibond, Rector of Bradwell in 

e [See above, pp. 74 scq.] Gloucestershire. (Wood, F. 0. ii. 69.)] 

f [See above, p. 153.] h [Works, vol. iii. p. 237.] 

[This appears to have been Dr. [Ibid. p. 240.] 


Die is more than half burnt out, (as is k to be seen,,) whether of 

I8imo * purpose by Mr. Pryn, or casually, I cannot tell; yet the 
passage as confidently made up, and read to your Lps., as if 
nothing were wanting. For the thing itself, the close of my 
words is this: So I see what justice I may expect, since 
here s a resolution taken, not only before my answer, but 
before my charge is brought up against me/ Which words 
can traduce no man s justice. First, because they depend 
upon an if: if the Parliament-man there mentioned told 409 
me truth, that such a resolution was taken. And secondly, 
because it can be no justice in any men, (236) be the sen 
tence never so moderate in itself, to take up a resolution 
what sentence shall pass, before answer given, or charge put 
in : for else a man may be punished first, and tried after, 
which is contrary to all rules of justice l . And, therefore, if 
such a resolution were taken, (as I believe not,) I might well 
say that which followed after. 

XIV. Then was produced a paper concerning the subsidies or 
aids which had been given in divers Parliaments, in which 
it is said, at the beginning of it, that Magna Charta had an 
obscure birth l , and was fostered by an ill nurse. " I believe 
that no man that knows Mr. Nicolas, thinks that he spake 
softly upon this." No, he spake loud enough : What laws 
would I spare, that spake thus of Magna Charta? First, 
here 2 is no proof offered that this paper is my collection, but 
only that it is in my hand. By which argument (as is said 
before) I may be made the author of anything ; and so 
may any scholar that is able and willing to inform himself. 
Secondly, the main draught of that paper is not in my hand, 
though some notes upon it be. Thirdly, there are Littleton, 
and other lawyers quoted in that paper, authors which 
I never read. Nor is this now any disgrace to Magna 
Charta, that it had an obscure birth : for say the difficulties 
of the times brought it obscurely forth ; that s no blemish to 
the credit and honour to which it hath for many ages 

[ birth, in margin; originally beginning, ] 
2 [ here in margin.] 

k It was viewed. non prseire." Aug. lib. xiii. de Trin. 

"Potentia sequi debefc justitiain, cap. xiii. [Op., torn. viii. col. 1424. A.] 


attained. Not only their laws, but the greatest empires that Die 
have been in the world, some of them have had obscure Vlcesimo - 
beginnings. Witness the Roman empire. Fourthly, what 
if our stories agree upon it, that it had an obscure birth, and 
a worse nurse ? What if some law books, (which Mr. Nicolas 
never read,) and those of good account, use almost the same 
words of Magna Charta, which are in that paper ] m ? Shall 
the same words be history and law in them, and treason in 
me ? " And somewhat certainly there is in it, that Mr. 
Brown, when he gave his summary charge against me, first 
to the Lords, and after in the House of Commons, quite 
omitted this particular. Sure I believe he found nothing was 
in the paper but known truth, and so passed it over, else he 
would never have denied a vindication to Magna Charta." 

After all this Mr. Nicolas concludes with a dream, which XV. 
he says was mine. The dream/ he says, was, that I should 
come to greater preferment in the Church, and power in the 
State, than any man of my birth and calling had done before 
me, but that in the end I should be hanged 11 / First, my 
Lords, if I had had any such dream, tis no proof of any 
thing against me. Dreams are not in the power of him that 
hath them, but in the unruliness of the fancy, which in 
broken sleeps wanders which way it pleases, and shapes what 
it pleaseth. But this dream is brought in as the fall of my 
picture was , to make me a scorn to your Lps. and the people. 
410 And to try whether anything will yet at last break my 
patience. This dream is reported here 2 according to Mr. 
Pryn s edition of my Diary P, somewhat different from that 
which Mr. Pryn printed in a former book of his ^ ; but the 
beginning and the end agree. From Mr. Pryn, Culmer hath 
taken and printed it r . And Mr. Pryn confessed before the 

1 [ which are in that paper] these words originally written before of 
Magna Charta. ] 

2 [ This dream . . . here on opposite page ; originally written, Here this 
dream is set down ] 

m Here is a void space left in the Num. xii. [p. 363.] 
margin, with design (I suppose) to P [See Breviate, p. 35.] 
insert therein some passages out of 1 [ A Breviate of the Bishop s in- 

law books concerning the obscure tolerable Usurpations. Lond. 1635. ] 
birth of Magna Charta : which space r [ Cathedral News ; or Dean and 

was not filled up. H. W. Chapter News from Canterbury. Lond. 

11 [See Prynne s Breviate, p. 35.] 1644. ] 


Die ^ Lords, that one Mr. Badger, an attorney at law, a kinsman 
Vicesimo. of mine ^ told it j^ The tmt ^ my Lords, is this. This 

Badger married a near kinswoman of mine ; he was a noto 
rious Separatist, and so nearer in affection to Mr. Pryn, than 
to me in alliance. This man came one day to me to Lam 
beth, and told me privately (which was more manners than 
usually the bold man had) that he heard I had such a dream 
when I was young, in Oxford. I protested to him there was 
no such thing, and that some malicious fellow or other had 
set him on work to come and abuse me to my face. He 
seemed satisfied ; but going to visit Mr. Pryn, then in the 
Tower, he told him; and Mr. Pryn, without further proof, 
prints it in the next book he set out. When I saw it in 
print, and found that some in court took notice of it l , 
I resolved to acquaint his Majesty how I was used; and 
meeting with the Earl of Pembroke, then Lord Chamberlain, 
and my great friend as he pretended, (the King being not 
then come forth of his chamber,) I told his Lp. how I was 
used ; and when the King came forth, I told it him also. 
But the E. of Pembroke, then present in the House, and 
called up by (237) them for a witness, forgetting the cir 
cumstances, but remembering the thing, took it upon his 
honour, that I said nothing of Mr. Pryn s printing it, but 
that I told him absolutely I had this dream. Now God 
forgive his Lp. I was much troubled in myself to hear him 
take it upon his dishonour, (for so it was,) and yet unwilling 
(knowing his violence) to contest with him in that place, and 
in my condition ; and observing what spleen he hath lately 
showed against me, I stood a little still to gather up myself. 
When Mr. Nicolas, before I could make any reply, fell on 
with great earnestness, and told the Lords, that the forepart 
of my dream was found true, to the great hurt both of 
Church and State ; and that he hoped they would now make 
good the latter : that I might be hanged. To which I an 
swered, That I had not forgotten our Saviour s prediction, 
S. John xvi., That in the world we should be sure to meet 
with affliction V Nor His prayer : Father, forgive these 

1 [ and found ... of it, in margin.] 

* St. John xvi. 33. 


men, for they know not what they do */ S. Luke xxiii. No, Die 
nor is that out of my memory which S. Paul speaks, 1 Cor. iv. Vlcesimo - 
de humano die u . But for the public, with this I shall con 
clude, God of His infinite mercy bless the King and his 
people with love, and peace, and piety, and plenty, which is 
the worst I ever wished or endeavoured, whatsoever it shall 
please God shall become of me, to whose blessed will and 
pleasure, in all humility I submit myself. And here ended 
this last day of my trial. But before I went from the bar, 
I made three motions to the Lords. The one, that I might 
have a day to make a recapitulation of this long and various 
charge, or of the chief heads of it, that it might appear in a 
body together. The other, that after this, my counsel might 
have a day to speak to all points of law, incident to my 
cause *. The third, that they would be pleased to remember 
411 that I had pleaded the Act of Oblivion to the thirteenth 
Original Article. Mr. Nicolas said, they would acquaint their 
House with it. And the Lords promised to take all into 
consideration. And so I was dismissed sine die. 

"But here I may not go off from this dream so, since 
Mr. Pryn hath printed it at the end of my Diary. Where 
he shamelessly says, c This dream was attested from my own 
mouth, at my trial in the Lords House. For I have set down 
all that passed exactly. Nor did I then give any attestation 
to it ; only before I could gather up myself, to answer the 
Earl of Pembroke in a fitting manner, and not to hurt myself, 
Mr. Nicolas fell upon me with that unchristian bitterness, as 
diverted me from the Earl, to answer him. But once for all, 
and to satisfy any man that desires it, that is all true which 
I have here set down concerning this dream, and upon my 
Christianity and hope of future salvation, I never had this 
dream nor any like it, nor did I ever tell it this Lord, or any 
other, any other 2 way, than in relation to Badger and Pryn, 
as is before related. And surely if I had had such a dream, 
I should not have had so little discretion, as to tell it any 

1 [Here written, but erased, The Lords promised to take them both into 
consideration. Thirdly, that they ] 2 [ any other in margin.] 

St. Luke xxiii. 34. u 1 Cor. iv. 3. 


Die man, least of all, to pour it into 1 that sieve, the Earl of 

Pembroke. For that which follows, and wherein his charity 
and words are almost the same with those of Mr. Nicolas, 
I give him the same answer, and (forgiving him all his most 
unchristian and insatiable malice against me) leave myself 
in the hands of God, not in his." 

Aug. 23, I received an order from the Lords x , that if I had a mind 

1 f\A.A. 

to make a recapitulation (as I had formerly desired) of my 
long and various charge, I should provide myself for it 
against Monday next, (this order came upon Friday,) and 
that I should give in my answer the next morning what 
Aug. 24. I meant to do. The next day, in obedience to this order, 
I gave in my answer ; which was, humble thanks that I might 
have liberty to make it, referring the day to their honourable 
consideration ; with this, that Monday next was a very short 
time for such a collection. Upon this answer, an order was 
presently made, that I should provide to make my recapitu 
lation upon Monday, September (238) the second y. And 
about this time, (the certain day I know not,) it was resolved 
in the House of Commons, that according to my plea I 
should enjoy the benefit of the Act of Oblivion, and not be 
put to answer the thirteenth Original Article, concerning the 
Scottish business. And truly, I bless God for it, I did not 
desire the benefit of that Act, for any sense of guiltiness 
which I had in myself; but, in consideration of the times, 
and the malice of the now potent faction, which being 
implacable towards me, I could not think it wisdom, to lay 
by any such power as might help to secure me. Yet, in the 
former part of this History, when I had good reason to think 

1 [ pour it into in margin.] 

x [The following is the entry in the wherein he gives their Lordships 

Lords Journals : humble thanks for their favour to- 

" Ordered, That Monday next is wards him, in giving him leave to 

appointed to hear the Archbishop of make a recapitulation of his whole 

Canterbury, to make a recapitulation defence, which will be very long, and 

of his whole defence, if he shall desire will require some further time to pre- 

it; and hereof notice is to be given pare himself for it than Monday next; 

to the said Archbishop, who is to therefore he humbly desires their 

return his answer hereunto to-morrow Lordships will please to give him 

morning."] some longer time. 

y [" The Speaker acquainted this " Hereupon it is ordered, That he 

House, That he had received a letter shall have time till Monday come 

from the Archbishop of Canterbury, seven-night. ] 


I should not be called to answer such general Articles, Die 
I have set down my answer to each of them, as much as Vlcesimo - 
generals can be answered. And thereby I hope my inno- 
cency will appear to this thirteenth Article also. 

Then came Monday, Sept. 2, and, according to the order September 
of the Lords, I made the recapitulation of my whole cause, 2 > 
in matters of greatest moment, in this form following. But 
so soon as I came to the Bar, I saw every lord present with 
412 a new thin book in folio, in a blue coat. I heard that 
morning that Mr. Pryn had printed my Diary, and published 
it to the world to disgrace me. Some notes of his own are 
made upon it. The first and the last are two desperate 
untruths, beside some others 2 . This was the book then in 
the Lords hands, and I assure myself, that time picked for 
it, that the sight of it might damp me, and disenable me to 
speak. I confess I was a little troubled at it. But after 
I had gathered up myself, and looked up to God, I went on 
to the business of the day, and thus I spake l . 

1 [ But so soon ... I spake. on opposite page.] 

z [This scandalous volume was pub- are printed for the first time in vol. 

lished by an order of the House of iii. pp. 257 seq. : he there gives an 

Commons, dated Aug. 16, 1644, as answer to these tAVO desperate un- 

appears in the title. The Archbishop s truths. ] 
notes preparatory to a detailed reply 

LAUD. VOL. iv. B B 




MY Lords, my hearing began March 12, 164f, and con 
tinued to the end of July. In this time I was heard before 
your Lps., with much honour and patience, twenty days; 
and sent back without hearing, by reason of your Lps . greater 
employments, twelve days. The rest were taken up with 
providing the charge against me. 

And now, my Lords, being come near an end, I am, by 
your grace and favour, and the leave of these Gentlemen of 
the Honourable House of Commons, to represent to your 
Lps. and your memories, a brief sum of my answers to this 
long and various charge : in which I shall not only endea 
vour, but perform also all possible brevity. And as with 
much thankfulness I acknowledge myself bound to your Lps. 
for your patience ; so I cannot doubt, but that I shall be as 
much obliged for your justice, in what I am innocent from 
crime ; and for your clemency, in what the common frailty 
of mankind hath made me err. And I humbly desire your 
Lps. to look upon the whole business with honourable care 
of my calling ; of my age ; of my long imprisonment ; of my 
sufferings in my estate ; and of my patience in and through 
this whole affliction : the sequestration having been upon 
my estate above two years. In which, notwithstanding, I may 
not omit to give thanks for the relief which my petitions 
found, for my present necessities in this time of my hearing, 
at your honourable hands. 

1. First then, I humbly desire your Lps. to remember 
the generality, and by occasion of that, the incertainty of 
almost every Article charged upon me, which hath cast me 
into great straits all along in making my defence. 

( 2. Next, that your Lps. will be pleased to consider, what 
a short space, upon each day s hearing, hath been allowed 413 
me to make my answer, to the many charges in each several 


day laid against me. Indeed, some days scarce time enough 
to peruse the evidence, much less to make, and then to 
review and weigh my answers, Especially considering (to 
my greatest grief) that such a charge should be brought up 
against me, from so great and honourable a body as the 
Commons of England. In regard of which, and all other sad 
occasions, I at first did, and do still in all humility desire, 
that in all particulars concerning law, my counsel may be 
heard before your Lps. proceed to sentence, and that a day 
may be assigned for my counsel accordingly. 

f 3. Thirdly, I heartily pray also, that it may be taken into 
your honourable consideration, how I have all manner of 
ways been sifted to the very bran, for that (whatever it 
amounts to) which stands in charge against me. 

( 1.) The key and use of my study at Lambeth, books and 
papers taken from me. 

( 2.) A search upon me at the Tower, made by Mr. Pryn, 
and one and twenty bundles of papers, prepared for my 
defence, taken from me, and not three bundles restored to 
me again. This search made before any particular articles 
were brought up against me. My very pockets searched ; 
and my Diary, nay, my very Prayer-book taken from me, 
and after used against me ; and that in some cases, not to 
prove, but to make a charge. Yet I am thus far glad, even 
for this sad accident. For by my Diary your Lps. have seen 
the passages of my life ; and by my Prayer-book the greatest 
secrets between God and my soul : so that you may be sure 
you have me at the very bottom : yet, blessed be God, no 
disloyalty is found in the one ; no Popery in the other. 

(3.) That all books of Council-Table, Star-Chamber, 
High- Commission, Signet-Office, my own Registeries, and 
the Registeries of Oxford and Cambridge, have been (239) 
most exquisitely searched for matter against me, and kept 
from me and my use, and so affording me no help towards 
my defence. 

4. I humbly desire your Lps. to remember, in the fourth 
place, that the things wherein I took great pains, and all for 
the public good and honour of this kingdom and Church, 
without any the least eye to my own particular, nay, with 
my own great and large expenses, have been objected against 

BB 2 


me as crimes. As namely, the repair of S. Paul s, and the 
settling of the Statutes of the University of Oxford/ 

(1.) For S. Paul s, not the repair itself, they say, (no, for 
very shame they dare not say that, though that be it which 
galls the faction,) but the demolishing of the houses which 
stood about it. Yea, but without taking down of these houses, 
it was not possible to come at the Church to repair it, which 
is a known truth. And they were taken down by commis 
sion under the Broad Seal. And the tenants had valuable 
consideration for their several interests, according to the 
number of their years remaining; and according to the 
judgment of commissioners named for that purpose, and 
named by liis Majesty and the Lords, not by me. Nor did 
I ever so much as sit with them about this business. And 414 
if the commission itself were any way illegal (as they urge it 
is) , that must reflect upon them, whose office was to draw and 
seal it ; not on me, who understood not the legality or ille 
gality of such commissions ; nor did I desire that any one 
circumstance against law should be put into it, nor is any 
such thing so much as offered in proof against me. And 
because it was pressed, that these houses could not be 
pulled down but by order of Parliament, and not by the 
King s commission alone : I did here first read in part, 
and afterwards, according to a salvo granted me, deliver into 
the Court three records, two in Ed. I. time, and one in 
Ed. III. time a , in which are these words : Authoritate nostra 
regali) prout opus fuerit, cessantibus quibuscunque appellatio- 
num et reclamationum diffugiis, juris, scripti, aut patrice 
strepitu procedatis, nova adificia, qua fyc. amoveri, et divelli 
penitus faciatis, fyc. And a little after, Quousque per nos cum 
deliberatione et avisamento nostri consilii super hoc aliter 
fuerit ordinatum, fyc. Here s no staying for a Parliament ; 
here s no recompense given ; here s barring of all appeal, 
nay all remedy of law, though written. And all this by the 
King s own authority, with the advice of his Council. And 
is a far more moderate way taken by me, yet under the same 
authority, and for the removal of far greater abuses, and for 
a more noble end, become treason ? 

a 1 Pars Pat. de An. 45. Ed. III. m. 34. [This document is still in the 
Tower of London.] 


f { 2.) As for the Statutes of Oxford/ the circumstances 
charged against me are many, and therefore I craved leave 
to refer myself to what I had already answered therein. 

5. Fifthly, many of the witnesses brought against me in 
this business are more than suspected Sectaries and Sepa 
ratists from the Church, which by my place I was to punish, 
and that exasperated them against me ; whereas by law no 
schismatic ought to be received against his bishop V And 
many of these are witnesses in their own causes, and pre- 
examined before they come in court. At which pre-examina- 
tion I was not present, nor any for me, to cross-interrogate. 
Nay, many causes which took up divers days of hearing in 
Star-Chamber, High-Commission, and at Council-Table, are 
now upon the sudden easily overthrown, by the depositions 
of the parties themselves. And upon what law this is 
grounded, I humbly submit to your Lps. And such as 
these, are the causes of Mr. Pryn, Mr. Burton, Mr. Wilson, 
Alderman Chambers, Mr. Vassal, Mr. Waker, Mr. Huntly, 
Mr. Foxlye, and many other. Where I humbly represent 
also, how impossible it is for any man, that sits as a judge, to 
give an account of all the several motives which directed his 
conscience in so divers causes, and so many years past, as 
these have been ; and where so many witnesses have been 
examined, as have been here produced against me : my 
Ifords, above a hundred and fifty witnesses, and some of 
them, three, four, six times over, and Mr. Pryn I know not 
how often. Whereas the civil law says expressly, that f the 
judges should moderate things so, that no man should be 
oppressed by the multitude of witnesses, which is a kind of 
415 proof too, that they which so (240) do, distrust the truth and 
goodness of their cause c . Besides, my Lords, in all matters 
which came before me, I have done nothing, to the uttermost 
of my understanding, but what might conduce to the peace 
and welfare of this kingdom, and the maintenance of the 
doctrine and discipline of this Church established by law ; 

b Cod. l[ib]. i. t[it], v. l[egj. 12. ct lib. xxii. tit. v. leg. 1. Corp. Jur. Civ. 

21. [coll. 94, 98. Col. Allob. 1624.] col. 708. Col. Allob. 1624.] 
Confer, at Hamp. Court, p. 26. " Adcle ct lianc rationem, quod qui 

c " Judices moderentur, &c. ne eflfhe- prasdicta licentia abutuntur, veniunt 

nata potestate ad vexandos bomines in suspicionem, quod non satis confi- 

superflua multitude) tcstium protra- dunt veritati." Gloss, ibid, 
hatur." Ff. L. 22. tit. v. [i.e. Digest. 


and under which God hath blessed this State with so great 
peace and plenty, as other neighbouring nations have looked 
upon with admiration. And what miseries the overthrow of it 
(which God in mercy forbid) may produce, He alone knows. 

6. Sixthly, my Lords, there -have been many and dif 
ferent charges laid upon me about words. But many of 
them (if spoken) were only passionate and hasty ; and such, 
upon what occasion soever drawn from me, (and I have 
had all manner of provocations put upon me,) may among 
human errors be pardoned unto me, if so it please your Lps. 
But for such as may seem to be of a higher nature, as those 
witnessed by Sir Henr. Vane the elder, I gave my answer 
again now fully to the Lords, but shall not need to repeat 
it here. 

1 7. Then, my Lords, for my actions; not only my own, 
but other men s have been heavily charged against me in 
many particulars, and that criminally, and I hope your Lps. 
Avill think illegally. As Secretary Windebank s, Bp. Monta 
gue s, my Chaplains , Dr. Heylin s, Dr. Cosen s, Dr. Pocklin- 
ton s, Dr. Dove s, Mr. Shelford s, and divers others : arid 
many of these charges look back into many years past. 
Whereas the Act made this present Parliament, takes no 
notice of, nor punishes any man, for anything done and past 
at the Council-Table, Star-Chamber, or High-Commission; 
much less doth it make anything treason d . And out of 
this Act I am no way excepted. Besides, (as I have often 
pleaded,) all Acts done in the Star-Chamber, at Council- 
Table, High-Commission, or Convocation, are all joint acts of 
that body, in and by which they were done ; and cannot by 
any law be singly put upon me, it being a known rule of the 
law, Refertur ad universes quod publice fit per majorem 
partem*. " And Mr. Pryn f himself can stand upon this rule 
against the Independents, and tell us, that the major voice, 
or party, ought to overrule and bind the less. And he 
quotes Scripture * for it too. In which place, that which is 

d [The Act 16 Car. I. cap. x. regu- Decretal, apud Corp. Jur. Can. t. iii. 
lated the Privy Council, and abolished p. 861. Lugd. 1671.] 
the Court of Star Chamber. The High f Pryn in his Independency Ex- 
Commission was abolished by 16 Car. I. amined, p. 4. [Lond. 1644.] 
cap. xi.] e 1 Chron. xiii. 4, 5 ; Acts xv. 22. 

e [Vide lleg. Jur. Caesar, ad fin. vi. 


done by the major part, is ascribed to all ; not laid upon any 
one, as here upon me 1 " And in some of these courts, Star- 
Chamber especially, and Council-Table, I was accompanied 
with persons of great honour, knowledge, and experience, 
judges, and others ; and tis to me strange, and will seem so 
to future ages, that one and the same act shall be treason in 
me, and not the least crime, nay, nor misdemeanour in any 
other. And yet no proof hath been offered that I solicited 
any man to concur with me, and almost all the votes given 
preceded mine, so that mine could lead no man/ 

8. After this I answered to divers other particulars, as 
namely to the Canons, both as they concerned aid to the 
King, and as they looked upon matters of the Church and 

9. To the charge about prohibitions. 

10. To the base charge about bribery. But pass them 
416 over here as being answered before ; whither I may refer the 

reader now, though I could not the Lords then 2 . 

11. My Lords, after this came in the long and various 
charge of my usurping Papal power/ and no less than a 
design to bring in all the corruptions of Popery, to the utter 
overthrow of the Protestant religion established in England. 
And this they went about to prove. 

( 1.) By my windows in the chapel : an argument as 
brittle as the glass in which the pictures are. 

( 2.) By pictures in my gallery : which were there 
before the house was mine, and so proved to your Lps. 

( 3.) By reverence done in my chapel : as if it were not 
due to God, especially in his Church ; and done it was not to 
any other person or thing. 

1 ( 4.) By consecration of churches : which was long be 
fore Popery came into the world. As was also the care of 
safe laying up of all hallowed and sacred things. For which, 
I desire your Lps. I may read a short passage out of Sir 
Walter Rawley s History 11 . The rather because written by a 
layman, and since the times of reformation/ 

And Mr. Pryn . . . upon me. on opposite page.] 

But pass them . . . then. inserted afterwards, part on opposite page.] 

h Sir Wai. Kawlcy, Hist, of the World, lib. ii. cap. 5. 1. [p. 296. Lond. 


But this Mr. Maynard excepted against, both as new 
matter, and because I had not the book present, though the 
paper thence transcribed was offered to be attested by oath 
to be a true copy. But though I could not be suffered to 
read it then, yet here it follows : " So sacred was the move- 
able temple of God, and with such reverence guarded and 
transported, as 22,000 persons were dedicated to the service 
and attendance thereof, of which 8,580 had the peculiar 
charge, according to their several offices and functions, the 
particulars whereof are in the third and fourth of Numbers \ 
.... The reverend care which Moses the prophet and chosen 
servant of God had, in all that belonged even to the outward 
and least parts of the tabernacle, ark, and sanctuary, wit 
nessed well the inward and most humble zeal borne toward 
God Himself. The industry used in the framing thereof, and 
every and the least part thereof, the curious workmanship 
thereon bestowed, the exceeding charge and expense in the 
provisions, the dutiful ob(241)servance in laying up and pre 
serving the holy vessels, the solemn removing thereof, the 
vigilant attendance thereon, and the provident defence of the 
same, which all ages have in some degree imitated, is now so 
forgotten and cast away in this superfine age, by those of the 
Family, by the Anabaptists, Brownists, and other sectaries ; 
as all cost and care bestowed and had of the Church, wherein 
God is to be served and worshipped, is accounted a kind of 
Popery, and as proceeding from an idolatrous disposition. 
Insomuch as time would soon bring to pass, (if it were not 
resisted,) that God would be turned out of churches into 
barns, and from thence again into the fields and mountains, 
and under the hedges ; and the office of the ministry (robbed 
of all dignity and respect) be as contemptible as those places ; 
all order, discipline, and church-government, left to newness 
of opinion and men s fancies. Yea, and soon after as many 
kinds of religions would spring up, as there are parish 
churches, &c." Do ye not think somebody set Mr. Maynard 417 
on to prohibit the reading out of this passage, as foreseeing 
whither it tended? For I had read one-third part of it, 
before I had the stop put upon me. 

Numb. iii. and iv. 


( ( 5.) But they went on with their proof, By my censuring 
of good men ; that is, separatists and refractory persons. 

1 (6.) By my chaplains expunging some things out of 
books which made against the Papists/ It may be, if my 
chaplains (whom it concerns) had liberty to answer, they 
were such passages as could not be made good against the 
Papists ; and then tis far better they should be out than in. 
For as S. Augustin observed in his, and we find it true in 
our time, the inconvenience is great, which comes to the 
Church and religion by bold affirmers V Nay, he is at a 
satis did non potest, the mischief is so great as cannot be 

( 7.) Then by altering some things in a sermon of Dr. 
Sybthorp s. But my answer formerly given will show I had 

( 8.) By ( my preferment of unworthy men : so unworthy, 
as that they would be famous both for life and learning, were 
they in any other Protestant Church in Christendom. "And 
they are so popishly affected, as that having suffered much 
both in state and reputation, (since this persecution of the 
clergy began ; for less it hath not been,) no one of them is 
altered in judgment, or fallen into any liking with the Church 
of Rome." 

(9.) By the overthrow of the feoffment : but that was 
done by judgment in the Exchequer, to which I referred 
myself. And if the judgment there given be right, there s 
no fault in any man ; if it were wrong, the fault was in the 
judges, not in me; I solicited none of them. 

( 10.) By a passage in my book, where I say, ( the religion 
of the Papists and ours is one 1 ; 7 but that s expressed at 
large, only because both are Christianity ; and no man, 
I hope, will deny that Papists are Christians. As for their 
notorious failings in Christianity, I have in the same book 
said enough to them. 

(11.) By a testimony of Mr. Burton s and Mr. Lane s, 
that I should say, We and the Church of Rome did not 

k " Quid molestia3 et tristitioe ingc- Gen. ad Lit. c. xix. [Op., torn. iii. col. 

runt prndentibus fratribus tcmcrarii 220. B.] 

asscrtorcs [leg. praesumptores], satis Cont. Fish. [sect. 39, num. 3,] p. 

dici non potest." [S.] Aug. [lib.] i. de 376, Edit. 1639 ; [p. 417, Oxf. 1849.] 


differ in fundamentals, but in circumstantials/ "This I 
here followed at large ; but, to avoid tedious repetition, refer 
my reader to the place where tis answered." 

(12.) By my making the Dutch Churches to be of another 
religion. But this is mistaken (as my answer will show the 
reader). " And if they do not make themselves of another 
religion, I shall never endeavour to make them." 

( 13.) By a pack of such witnesses, as were never produced 
against any man of my place and calling ; messengers and 
pursuivants, and such as have shifted their religion to and 
again ; pillory-men and bawds : and these the men that must 
prove my correspondence with priests. 

12. In the midst of these, upon occasion of the cere 
monies at the coronation, it was pressed against me, that 
I had altered the King s oath/ 

( 14.) And last of all, that I had showed myself an enemy 418 
to Parliaments/ [Upon both these I did very much enlarge 
myself: but here also, that I may not be a burden in repeating 
the same thing, I desire the reader to look upon them in 
their proper places, (242) where I doubt not but my answer 
will give him full satisfaction, that I did not the one, nor am 
the other.] 

1 But, my Lords, there are other strange arguments pro 
duced against me, to prove my compliance with Rome, which 
I most humbly desire your Lps. may not be forgotten. 

( 1. As first, my Lords, it hath been charged upon me, 
that I made the oath recited in the first of the late Canons, 
one clause whereof is this : that I will never give my con 
sent to subject this Church to the usurpations and supersti 
tions of the Church of Rome/ Whence the argument drawn 
against me must be this, and can be no other : That I did 
endeavour to bring in Popery, because I made and took a 
solemn oath, never to give my consent to subject this Church 
of England to the usurpations and superstitions of the Church 
of Rome. I beseech your Lps., mark the force of this argu 
ment : and they which follow are as pregnant against me. 

2. Secondly, my book against Fisher hath been charged 
against me ; where the argument must lie thus : I have 
endeavoured to advance Popery, because I have written 
against it : and with what strength I have written, I leave 


to posterity to judge, when the envy which now overloads 
me shall be buried with me. This I will say with St. Gre. 
Nazianzen, (whose success at Constantinople was not much 
unlike mine here, save that his life was not sought,) I never 
laboured for peace to the wrong and detriment of Christian 
verity m , nor, I hope, ever shall. " And let the Church of 
England look to it ; for in great humility I crave to write 
this, (though then was no time to speak it,) that the Church 
of England must leave the way it s now going, and come 
back to that way of defence which I have followed in my 
book, or she shall never be able to justify her separation from 
the Church of Rome." 

e 3. Thirdly, all the late Canons have been charged against 
me ; and the argument which is drawn from thence must lie 
thus : The third of these Canons for suppressing the growth of 
Popery, is the most full and strict canon that ever was made 
against it in the Church of England: therefore, I that made 
this canon to keep it out, am guilty of endeavouring to bring 
it in. 

4*. Fourthly, I have by my industry, and God s great 
blessing upon my labours, stayed as many from going, and 
reduced to the Church of England as many that were gone 
to Rome, as I believe any minister in England can truly say 
he hath done : I named them before, and had scorn enough 
put upon me for it, as your Lps. could not but both see and 
hear. Where the argument lies thus : I converted many from 
Popery, and settled them in the religion established in 
England : therefore I laboured to bring in Popery ; which 
out of all doubt can be no sober man s way. 

5. Fifthly, the plot discovered to Sir William Boswell 
and myself, by Andreas ab Habernfield, hath been charged 
against me : that plot, for altering of religion, and by what 
419 ways, your Lps. have heard already, and is to be seen at full 
in Rome s Master-piece 11 / Now, if this plot in the issue 
proved nothing but a confused information, and no proof of 
any particular, as indeed it did, what s become of Rome s 
Master-piece ? But if it had any reality in it, as it appeared 

" Non studeamus paci in verge eyres TI 5m So^av eVtetKems.] Greg 1 , 
inse detrimentum." [Oi/re elp-nvtv- 
Kara rov \6you TTJS d\T)deias v(f>i- 

doctrinoe detrimentum." [Oi/re elpTivfv- Naz. Orat. 32. [Op., torn. i. p. 518. C\] 

11 Mr. Pryn s Home s Master-piece. 


to be a sad plot, not only to me, but to all men that saw the 
short propositions which were first sent, with an absolute 
undertaking to prove them ; then it appears expressly, that I 
was in danger of my life for stiffly opposing the bringing in 
of Popery ; and that there was no hope to alter religion in 
England, till I was taken out of the way. And though in 
conclusion the proofs failed, yet what was consulted, and it 
seems resolved, concerning me, is plain enough. And then 
the argument against me lies thus : There s no hope to bring 
in Popery, till I am taken out of the way : therefore I did 
labour to bring it in, Do not these things, my Lords, hang 
handsomely together? 

6. Lastly, there have been above threescore letters and 
other papers brought out of my study into this honourable 
House ; they are all about composing the differences between 
the Lutherans and the Calvinists in Germany. Why they 
should be brought hither, but in hope to charge them upon 
me, I know not ; and then the argument will be this : I 
laboured to reconcile the Protestants in Germany, that they 
might unanimously set themselves against the Papists : there 
fore, I laboured to bring Popery into England. 

Now that your Lps. have heard the arguments, and what 
proof they make against me, I must be bold to put you in 
mind of that which 1 was said here at (243) the Bar, April 16, 
1644. That f they did not urge any of these particular actions 
as treason against me ; but the result of them all together 
amounted to treason/ For answer to which, I must be bold 
to tell your Lps., that if no particular which is charged upon 
me be treason, the result from them cannot be treason, which 
will appear by these reasons following : 

( 1. First, the result must be of the same nature and species 
with the particulars from which it rises. But tis confessed 
no one of the particulars are treason : therefore, neither is the 
result that rises from them. And this holds in nature, in 
morality, and in law. 

In nature, and that both for integral and essential parts ; 
for neither can the body of a bear and the soul of a lion result 
into a fox ; nor the legs of a bull, the body of a horse, and 
the head of an ass, result into a man. 

1 [ that which in margin.] 


f In morality, and that is seen both in virtues and vices : 
for neither can many actions of liberality, meekness, and 
sobriety rise up into a result of fortitude ; neither can many 
actions of malice, drunkenness, and covetousness, result into 

In law tis so too : for be there never so many particular 
crimes, yet there is no law in this kingdom, nor anywhere 
else that I know, that makes a result of different crimes to 
be treason, where none of the particulars are treason by law. 
So this imaginary result is a monster in nature, in morality, 
and in law ; and if it be nourished, will devour all the safety 
of the subject of England, which now stands so well fenced 
420 by the known law of the land. And therefore I humbly 
desire your Lps., not for mine, but for the public s sake, to 
weigh this business well, before this gap be made so wide as 
there will hardly be power left again to shut it. 

2. My second reason is joined to the answer of an objec 
tion ; for when this result was spoken of, it was added, that 
the particulars charged against me are of the same kind, and 
do all tend to the subversion of law and religion, and so 
become treason. But, first, suppose that all the particulars 
charged do tend to the subversion of law, yet that cannot 
make them to be all of one kind : for all crimes tend more 
or less to the overthrow of virtue ; yet no man can say that 
all crimes are of the same kind. Secondly, be they of the 
same, or different kinds ; yet neither all nor any of these 
charged against me do tend to the subversion of the law : 
for tis one thing to break, dislike, or speak against some 
particular laws, and quite another to labour the subversion 
of the whole body of the law and the frame of government. 
And that I have done this by conspiracy, or force, or any 
overt action, is not so much as offered in proof. And for the 
breach of any particular law, if I be guilty, I am to be 
punished by the sanction of the law which I have broken 1 . 

3. Thirdly, whereas it hath been said that many actions 
of the same kind make a habit; that s true. But what then? 
For first, the actions urged against me are not of the same 
kind, but exceeding different. Secondly, if the habit be 
treasonable, then all those particular actions which bred that 
1 [ if I ... broken. in margin.] 


habit must be several treasons, as well as the result or habit 
itself; whereas it hath been granted all along, that my par 
ticular actions are not treasons. And thirdly, a habit in 
itself neither is nor can be treason : for all treason is either 
thought, word, or overt act : but no habit is either of these ; 
therefore not treason. For a habit is that in the soul which 
inclines the powers of it, and makes a man apt and ready to 
think, speak, or do that to which he is habituated . So an 
ill habit against sovereign power may make a man apt and 
forward to fall into treason ; but treason it is not. 

4. Fourthly, nor can this result be treason at the common 
law, by which alone, I conceive, there is no treason at all at 
this day in England : for the main end of that excellent 
statute of 25 Edw. III. was for the safety of the subject 
against the manifold treasons which variously fell upon them 
by the common law, and bounded all treasons, and limited 
them to the things expressed to be treason in and by that 
statute. And in all times of difficulty since, recourse hath 
still been had to that statute. And to that statute I refer 
myself, with this : that this result must be something within 
this statute, or some other known statute, or else it cannot 
be treason, And no proof at all hath been so much as offered, 
that this result is treason by any law. 

(244) My Lords, I do with all humble submission desire 
that when the reply is made to this matter of fact, a day may 
be assigned for my counsel to be heard in matter of law, in 
all and every particular which they shall find necessary for 
my just defence. 

And now, my Lords, I do in all humility lay myself low 421 
at God s mercy-seat, to do with me as He pleases ; and, under 
God, I shall rely upon your Lps . justice, honour, and 
clemency, of which I cannot doubt. And without being 
further tedious to your Lps. (who have with very honourable 
patience heard me through this long and tedious trial), I shall 
conclude with that which St. Augustine said to Romanianus, 
a man that had tried both fortunes as well as I: f lf the 
Providence of God reaches down to us (as most certain it 
cloth), sic tecum agi oportet, sicut agitur ; it must so be done 

[S.] Tho. [Aquin. Sum. TheoL] i. 2se. q. 50. A. 5. 


with tliee (and so with me also) as it is done P. And under 
that Providence, which will, I doubt not, work to the best to 
my soul that loves God 1, I repose myself. 

Here ended my Recapitulation, and with it the work of 
that day r : and I was ordered to appear again the Saturday 
following, to hear Mr. Brown sum up the whole charge against 
me. But upon Tuesday, Septemb. 3, this was put off, to give Septemb. 
Mr. Brown more time, to Wednesday, Septemb. 11. 

On Wednesday, Septemb, 4, as I was washing my face, Septemb.4. 
my nose bled, and something plentifully, which it had riot 
done, to my remembrance, in forty years before, save only 
once, and that was just the same day and hour, when my 
most honourable friend the Ld. Duke of Buckingham was 
killed at Portsmouth, myself being then at Westminster. 
And upon Friday, as I was washing after dinner, my nose Septemb.6. 
bled again. I thank God I make no superstitious observation 
of this or anything else ; yet I have ever used to mark what 
and how anything of note falls to me. And here I after 
came to know, that upon both these days in which I bled, 
there was great agitation in the House of Commons to have 
me sentenced by ordinance ; but both times put off, in regard 
very few of that House had heard either my charge or 

P [" Nam si divina providentia per- heard to sum up their evidence, when 

tenditur usque ad nos, quod minime their Lordships shall please to ap- 

dubitandum est, mihi crede, sic tecum point. And the Archbishop desired, 

agi oportet, utagitur."] S. Aug. lib. i. That his Counsel might be heard in 

cont. Academ. cap. 1. [Op., torn. i. col. point of law, according to the order of 

423. B.] this House. 

i S. Mat. x. 29; Bom. viii. 28. " Ordered, That Saturday morning 

r [It appears by the Lords Journals, next is appointed to hear the Corn- 
that mittee of the House of Commons sum 

" On the conclusion of the Arch- up their evidence against the Arch 
bishop s Kecapitulation, the House of bishop of Canterbury."] 
Commons desired that they might be 







CAP. XLIV. 422 

ON Wednesday, September 11, Mr. Brown made in the 
Lords House a sum or brief of the charge which was brought 
against me, and touched by the way at some things in my 
Recapitulation. But in regard I might not answer him, I took 
no perfect notes, but stood still, and possessed my soul in 
patience ; yet wondering at the bold, free, frequent, and most 
false swearing that had been against me. When Mr. Brown 
had ended, I humbly desired again, that my Counsel might 
be heard in point of law. And they were hereupon ordered 
to deliver in writing under their hands, what points of law 
they would insist upon, and that by Saturday, September 14 a . 

This day my Counsel, according as they were ordered, deli 
vered into the Lords House these two points following, by 
way of question. First, whether in all, or any the articles 
charged against me, there be contained any treason by the 
established laws of this kingdom? Secondly, whether the 
charge of the said impeachment and articles, did contain 
such certainty and particularity, as is required by law, in 
a case where treason is charged b ? This day I petitioned the 

a [The following is the entry in the 
Lords Journals : 

" Die Mercurii, 11 die Septembris. 

" This day Mr. Samuel Browne, a 
member of the House of Commons, 
made a summary of the whole evidence 
formerly given against the Archbishop 
of Canterbury. 

" Which being done, the Archbishop 
replied not; but desired his Counsel 
might be heard in matter of law. 

" Mr. Maynard replied, That he de 
sired to know to what point his Coun 
sel will speak to in point of law, that 
so a caee may be agreed upon, whereby 
a reply may be made in behalf of the 
House of Commons. 

" The Archbishop answered, That 
his Counsel are best able to speak to 

" Hereupon they withdrew; and this 
House ordered, That the Counsel of 
the Archbishop of Canterbury shall 
deliver in writing, by them subscribed, 
into the clerk of the Parliaments, by 

Saturday next, before the House sits, 
what points of law they will desire to 
be heard in, concerning the said Arch 
bishop of Canterbury; and then the 
same to be communicated to those 
members of the House of Commons 
that managed the evidence."] 

b [In the Lords Journals, Sept. 14, is 
the following petition from the Arch 
bishop s Counsel : 

" Die Sabbati, 14 die Septembris. 

" In obedience to your Lordships 
order of the llth of this present, we, 
by your Lordships command, assigned 
of counsel with the Archbishop of Can 
terbury, upon several Articles of im 
peachment sent up to your Lordships 
by the honourable House of Commons, 
humbly represent to your Lordships, 
that, as concerning the same, we hum 
bly conceive (with submission to your 
Lordships great judgment) that these 
questions are proper to be insisted on 
by us, as matters in law, on the behalf 
of the said Archbishop : 

" 1. Whether 


Lords, that my Counsel might have access to, and take copies 
of, all such records as they thought necessary for my defence; 
which was granted, and ordered accordingly c . 

My Counsel s queries having been formerly sent down to 
the House of Commons, they were there referred to a com 
mittee of lawyers to consider of; and on Septemb.27, Friday, Septemb. 
they were earnestly called upon to hasten their report. And 
on Friday, Octob. 4, Mr. Nicolas made a great noise about Octob. 4. 
me in the House, and would have had me presently censured 
in the House; and no less would serve his turn, but that 
I must be hanged, and was at Sus. per coll. ; till upon the 
reasons before given, that if they went on this way, they 
must condemn me unheard, this violent clamour ceased for 
that time. And a message was sent up to the Lords for my 
Counsel to be heard, as touching the first question concerning 
treason; but not concerning any exception that they shall 
take against the Articles in point of certainty. This message 
the Lords took into present consideration, and ordered it 
accordingly* 1 . And appointed the Friday following, being 
Octob. 11, for my Counsel to be heard, and myself to be Octob. 11- 

" 1. Whether in all or any the Ar- courts of justice, for his Counsel being 

tides charged, there be contained any permitted the view, and to have copies 

treason by the established laws of the of such records as they shall conceive 

kingdom ] useful for him. 

" 2. Whether the charge of the said " Hereupon this House ordered,That 

impeachment and articles do contain he shall have liberty for his Counsel 

such certainty and particularity, as is to view and search such records as may 

required by law in a case where treason make for his necessary defence, as is 

is charged ] desired."] 

" Ordered, that this be sent to the d [" Die Veneris, 4 die Octobris. 

House of Commons by message.] " A message was brought from the 

c [The following is the entry in the House of Commons, 

Lords Journals : " 3. That whereas their Lordships 

" A petition of the Archbishop of sent down to the House of Commons a 
Canterbury was read, showing, that paper, subscribed by the Counsel of the 
his Counsel being by order required Archbishop, concerning being heard 
to represent to your Lordships what in point of law, in behalf of the Arch- 
points in law they should think fit to bishop of Canterbury and they do 
insist upon for his defence, in which agree that the Archbishop s Counsel 
they conceive several copies of records may have leave to argue this point ; 
in the Tower, with the clerk of the videlicet, Whether in all or any of 
Parliament, in the Crown Office, and the Articles charged against the Arch- 
elsewhere, may be of necessary use for bishop, there be contained any trea- 
them, the view and copies whereof, son 1 ? 

without their Lordships order, will " But they desire that the Counsel 

not be permitted, and copied for them; of the Archbishop may not be heard 

therefore desired their Lordships order concerning any exception that they 

to the officers in the several places shall take against the Articles in point 

aforesaid, and other his Majesty s of certainty, because an exception to a 
LAUD. VOL. iv. 


This day, according to this order of the Lords, I and my 
Counsel attended. My Counsel were Mr. Hern, and Mr. 
Hales of Lincoln s-Inn, and Mr. (245) Gerrard of Gray s-Inn. 
When we were called into the House, and the Lords settled 
in their places, Mr. John Hern (who was the man that spake 
what all had resolved on) delivered his argument very freely 
and stoutly, proving that nothing which I have either said 
or done according to this charge, is treason, by any known 
established law of this kingdom e . The argument follows in 
these words, according to the copy which Mr. Hern himself 
delivered me I . 

(246) 2 My Lords, 423 

A short introduction. The work of this day, we humbly conceive, 

is in many respects of very great and high concernment. 
1 . In that it concerns matter of life, a thing of the highest 


1 2. The life of an Archbishop, a person who had attained the 
highest dignity conferred in the Church of England. 
3. Those happy laws, many years since enacted and con 
firmed by several Parliaments, to be the boundaries 
what was treason; a crime before so various, as it 
had no bounds ; and so odious, that the punishment 
of it was an infamous death, a total confiscation, with 
a brand of infamy to all posterity. 
4. In that the charge against him moves from no less 

1 [This is written in another hand, and not that of the Archbishop, down to 
the end of page 257 of MS., though now and then there is a correction in his 
own hand.] 

2 [On the top of this page there is written Delivered me in Laud s own 
hand, as if a catch-word.] 

charge of high treason in point of cer- be any treason ? "] 
tainty (being but matter of form), e The Lord Chancellor Finch * told 

especially after evidence given, is not me, that this argument was not Mr. 

to be allowed in Parliament. Hern s, (though he pronounced it,) for 

" Agreed to. he could not argue ; but it was Mr. 

" 4. To desire a short day for hearing Hales , afterward Lord Chief Justice. 

the Archbishop s Counsel as aforesaid. And he said further, that being then 

" Ordered, That the Counsel of the a young lawyer, he stood behind Mr. 

Archbishop shall be heard on Friday Hern, when he spoke at the bar of the 

next in the morning, Whether in all Lords House, and took notes of it; 

or any of the Articles charged against and that it will be published among 

the Archbishop of Canterbury there his Reports. W. S. A. C. 

* [Heneage Finch, Lord Keeper, Nov. 9, 1673, created Baron Finch, Jan. 10, 
167*, Lord High Chancellor, Dec.l9,1675,andMayl2,1681, Earl of Nottingham.] 


a body than the whole Commons of England, which 
presents him now a prisoner at this bar before your 
Lps., in the high and supreme court of judicature in 

And if anything shall fall from us, subject to any doubt 
ful construction, we shall humbly crave your Lps . pardon, 
arid leave to make our explication : for as there is upon us 
a duty to be wary, not to offer anything which may minister 
just offence; so neither may we be unfaithful to omit what 
may justly tend to our client s defence. 

The charge against him, we find to be made The charge, upon what it 
up of two several parcels of Articles, exhibited by c 
the honourable House of Commons. 

( 1. The first, in maintenance of their accusa- The titles of the several 

parcels of the Articles upon 

tion, whereby he stands charged with high which the charge against the 

Archbishop was made up. 


2. The latter, intituled Further Articles of Impeachment 
of high treason, and divers high crimes and misde 
meanours, for all which matters and things they have 
impeached him of high treason and other high crimes 
and misdemeanours, tending to the subversion of 
religion, laws, and liberties, and to the utter ruin of 
this Church and commonwealth. 

( Concerning this charge, and the Archbishop s The straits upon ins coun- 

, sel, by reason of the mixed 

defence., he hitherto made before your Lps., we, charge, without distinguish- 

ing what was intended to be 

by vour Lps . command assigned his Counsel, a treason, what a misde- 

" meanour. 

neither have (247), nor could (by reason of the 
mixed charge, without distinguishing what was thereby in 
tended to be a charge of treason, and what of misdemeanour 
only) be further useful to him, than to advise the form of his 
plea and answer, which we received from him, as to all the 
matters of fact, to be a Not guilty. 

We have not in all or any the facts charged or evidenced 
against him, in any sort intermeddled. But the same (how 
proved and how appliable to the charges, without mention of 
any of them) shall wholly leave to -your Lps . notes and 

What defence he hath offered hitherto, hath been wholly 
his own ; he without us in that ; and we without consulting 
him in the work of this day. 

c c 2 


Wherein, having received your Lps . commands, we did 424 
present in writing the points in law we then humbly con 
ceived fit for us to insist upon. 
The two points presented I. Whether in all, or any the Articles 

liy Counsel in writing, to be i -i , -i ,-t 

insisted upon for his defence charged against mm, there was con 

tained any treason by the established 
laws of this kingdom ? 

II. Whether the charge of the said Impeachment and 
Articles, did contain such certainty and particu 
larity, as is required by law in a case where treason 
is charged? 

The first only admitted. But being enjoined by your honourable 

order, to speak only to the former : we shall, as in duty 
becomes, conform thereunto. 

The method proposed. For our method herein shall follow the course 

holden in the reply, made upon the whole Articles, whereby 
we conceived the charges contained in them were reduced 
to these three generals : 

The three general charges. 1. A traitorOUS CndeaVOUr to Subvert the 

fundamental laws of the realm; and instead thereof, to 
introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical government against 
law : contained in the first Original and first Additional 

* 2. Secondly, a traitorous endeavour to subvert God s 
true religion by law established ; and instead thereof, to set 
up Popish superstition and idolatry : this contained in the 
seventh Original and seventh Additional Articles. 

3. Thirdly, that he laboured to subvert the rights of 
Parliament, and the ancient course of parliamentary pro 
ceedings, and by false and malicious slanders to incense 
(248) his Majesty against Parliaments. And this con 
tained in the fourteenth Original and tenth Additional 

All other the Articles, we humbly conceive to be but 
instances, conducing and applied to some of those generals. 

Concerning those three general heads of the charge, we 
shall crave leave to propose two questions to be debated. 
TWO general questions to be 1. Whether there be at this day any other 

insisted upon. 

treason, than what is declared by the statute of 
25 Ed. III. cap. 2, or enacted by some subsequent particular 


statute; which we humbly conceive, and shall endeavour to 
satisfy your Lps., there is not any. 

2. Whether any the matters in any of the Articles charged, 
contain any of the treasons declared by that law, or enacted 
by any subsequent law ; which we likewise conceive they do 
not. And for the clearing of both these shall humbly insist ; 

f T A , r are riot treasons, 

1 . An endeavour to subvert the laws, f 

* j , ,. . either within the 

An endeavour to subvert religion, 
A i k . ^ -1,4. 4 statute of 25 Ed. 

A labouring to subvert the rights j _ 

fTt r III. or by any other 

of Parliaments. _ J J 

L particular statute. 

2. That not any of the particulars, instanced in any other 
the Articles, is a treason within the statute 25 Ed. III. or 
any other statute. 

And to make good OUr tenet Upon OUr first In maintenance of our first 

tenet upon the first question. 

question, shall humbly offer, 

That before this statute of 25 Ed. III. treasons at the 
425 common law were so general and uncertain, that almost any 
crime, by inferences and constructions, might be, arid was 
often extended to be a treason ; insomuch, as we find in 22. 
of the Book of Assize, killing the King s messenger was 
treason. And in the Parliament Roll, 21 Ed. III. numero 15, 
accroaching the royal power (wherein every excess was subject 
to a construction of treason) was treason ; for which divers 
having suffered, the Commons in Parliament, finding how 
mischievous and destructive it was to the subject, petitioned 
it might be bounded and declared. And this, not to give 
any liberty, but to give bounds to it ; one while it being 
construed an accroachment of royal power, as in the case of 
the Earl of Lancaster, temp. Ed. II., for being over popular 
with the people; and in the same King s reign to Spencer, 
for being over gracious with the King. 

(249) ( The sense of these and other mischiefs by the 
uncertainty of treason, brought on this law of The uncertainty of what 

. 1 was, or was not treason, pru- 

25 Ed. III.; and the benefit of it to the sub- duced the law of 25 Ed. m. 
ject, says Sir Ed. Coke upon his Collections of the Pleas of 
the Crown, begot that Parliament the name of Parlia- 
mentum benedictum, and that, except Magna The Parliament of 25 Ed. 

III. by reason of that Jaw 

Charta, no other Act of Parliament had more called Pariiamcntum 


////; and, that no law had honour given it by the King, Lords, and Com- 

deservedly more honour than f 

Magna Charta. mOUS . 

The Act of 25 Ed. in. the And this law hath been in all times the rule to 

rule in Parliament to judge . i\ T ~t it 

treasons by. judge treasons by, even in Parliament ; and there- 

Parliament Roii, i H. iv. fore in the Parliament Roll, 1 H. IV. num. 144, 

num. 144, the prayer of the , . . , -i i , r> i 

commons. the trial and judgment in cases of impeachment 

of treason is prayed by the Commons, might be according 

to the ancient laws; and in the Parliament Roll, 5 H. IV. 

Parliament Roii, 5 H. iv. num. 12, in the case of the then Earl of Northum- 

num. 12; case, Earl of North- , -, ., . / r T-I i TTT /i i 

umberiand. berland, this statute of 2o Ed. III. was the guide 

and rule by which the Lords judged, in a case endeavoured 
to have been extended to be a treason, the same to be no 

Treasons particularly enacted ^ And it is, as WC COnCCWe, VCry observable, 
after 25 Ed. 111. still reduced . ,._ ,, ., ,, 

to that law. that if at any time the necessity or excess of the 

times produced any particular laws in Parliament, for making 
of treasons not contained in that law of 25 Ed. III., yet they 
returned and fixed in that law. 

Treasons made in the di- ( WltUCSS the Statute of 1 H. IV. Cap. 10, 
vided time of R. II. reduced , , ,, ,, ,, , . , , 

ow-Btat. i H. iv. cap. io. whereby all those facts which were made treasons 
mean between in the divided time of R. II. were reduced to 
this of Ed. III. 
Made in the time of H. vm. In the time of H. VIII., wherein several 

reduced 1 Ed. VI. cap. 12. ,1,1 , i 

ofrences were enacted to be treasons, not contained 
in the statute of 25 Ed. III., the same were all swept away 
by the statute of 1 Ed. VI. cap. 12. 
Made in the time of Ed. c And again, wherein the time of Ed. VI. 

VI. reduced by the Act of ,1,1 n 

i Marioe, cap. i. several treasons were enacted, they were all re 

pealed, and by Act made 1 Marise 1, none other offence left 
to be treason than what was contained and declared by the 
statute of 25 Ed. III. 
From i H. iv. to this day, fj^ And from 1 H. IV. to Queen Mary, and 

no judgment in Parliament -. , , 

given of any treason not con- from thence downward, we find not any -judgment 

tained in that law. 1,11 T^ T P 

hath been given in Parliament, for any treason 
not declared and contained in that law, but by bill. 
This law in aii times the Thus in succession of all times, this statute 42G 

standard to judge treasons by. n ^.^ .,_. , -.--,--.- . , . , n r. -r T 

of 2o Ed. III., m the wisdom of former Parlia 
ments, hath stood and been the constant fixed rule for all 
judgments in cases of treason. 

f [Instit, par. iii. p. 2. Lond. 1648.] 


f We shall now observe what offences are in and by that 
law declared to be treasons; whereby your Lps. (250) will 
examine, whether you find any of them in the charge of these 
Articles; for which purpose we shall desire this statute of 
25 Ed. III. be read. 

( The treasons declared by that Act, are, 

1. Compassing and imagining the death Of Treasons declared per stat. 

25 Ed. III. cap. 2. 

the King, Queen, or Prince, and declaring 
the same by some overt act. 

< 2. Murdering the Chancellor, Treasurer, &c. 

3. Violating the Queen, the King s eldest daughter, or 

the Prince s wife. 

4. Levying war against the King. 
* 5. Or adhering to the King s enemies, within the 

realm or without, and declaring the same by some 

overt act. 

< 6. Counterfeiting the seals and coin. 
7. Bringing in counterfeit coin. 

Next, we shall lay for a ground, that this stat. 25 Ed. HI. may admit 

. n , . .no construction by equity or 

Act OUght not tO be Construed by equity Or in- inference to make other trea 
son than thereby declared. 


1 . For that it is a declarative law ; and no Reasons why not. 

declaration ought to be upon a declaration. 
2. It was a law provided to secure the subject, for his life, 
liberty, and estate ; and to admit constructions and 
inferences upon it, were to destroy the security 
provided for by it. 

3. It hath been the constant opinion in all times, both in 
Parliament and upon judicial debates, that this Act 
must be literally construed, and not by inference or 
illation : nor would it be admitted in a particular 
declared by this law to be treason; which a man 
would have thought might have been consistent 
with it. 

Viz. counterfeiting the coin of the kingdom, is by this 
law declared treason. 

Washing, filing, and clipping the coin, is an Instances where it would 
abuse, an abasing, and not making it current ; yet nc 
in 3 H. V., when the question was in Parliament, whether 


that offence was treason within the statute of 25 Ed. IIJ., it is 
stat. 3 ii v. cap. 6. declared by a special Act then made, 3 H. V. cap. 6, 

that forasmuch as before that time, great doubt and ambi 
guity had been, whether those offences ought to be adjudged 
treason or not, inasmuch as mention is not thereof made in 
the declaration of (25 1 ) the articles of treason by that statute 
of 25 Ed. III., the same was by that particular Act made 
treason, which before was none : and counterfeiting of foreign 
coin, made current here, an equal mischief with counterfeit 
ing of the coin of this realm. Yet, because the words of 
the statute are his money/ this not treason, until the Act of 
M. cap. G. 1 Marise, cap. 6 made it so. And Sir Ed. Coke, 427 

in his book before mentioned, saith, a compassing to levy 
war is not a treason within that law, unless it proceed into 
coke, collections, pieas of act g ; but only to compass the death of the King. 
Yet if a constructive treason should be admitted, 
it might happily without any great straining be inferred, that 
compassing to levy war is in some sort a compassing of the 
King s death ; and of this kind many more instances may 
be given. 

^^ So that the result of all this is, that whatsoever is not 
declared to be a treason within the letter of this law, may 
not be adjudged a treason by inference, construction, or 

2. Question. Having done with this first, we now shall come 

to our second question. 

Whether any the matters in all or any the Articles 
charged, contain any the treasons declared by that 
law, or enacted by any subsequent law; wherein, 
although the charges may appear to be great and 
enormous crimes, yet we shall endeavour, and hope 
to satisfy your Lps., the same nor any of them are 
treasons by any established law of the kingdom : 
for clearing whereof we shall pursue the order first 

First, that an endeavour to subvert fundamental laws is 

not treason by any law in this kingdom established; and 

particular Act to make it treason there is none : so as we 

must then return to apply those former general observations 

s [lustit. par. iii. p. 9.] 


of that Act of 25 Ed. III. to this particular ; and shall add 
for reasons, 

1 . That it is not comprised within any the words of that 
law, nor may by any construction or inference be 
brought within it, for the reasons formerly alleged. 
(252) 2. Because an endeavour to subvert laws is of so 
great a latitude and uncertainty, that every action 
not warranted by law may be thereby extended to 
be a treason. 

In the Sixth Eeport, in Mildmay s case, fol. Mildmay . s C ase ; 6 Report, 
42, where a conveyance was made in tail, with a Coke foL 42> [Lon(L 162L] 
proviso, if he did go about or attempt to discontinue the 
entail, the same should be void : it was resolved the proviso 
was void; and the principal reason was, that these words, 
( attempt or go about/ are words uncertain and void in law. 
And the words of the book are very observable ; viz, God 
defend that inheritances and estates of men should depend 
upon such incertainties ; for that misera est servitus ubi jus 
est vagum, et quod non definitur in jure quid fit conatus ; and 
therefore the rule of the law doth decide this point. Non 
efficit conatus, nisi sequitur effectus ; and the law doth reject 
conations and goings about, as things uncertain which cannot 
be put in issue/ These are the words of the book. And if 
so considerable in estates, your Lps., we conceive, will hold 
it far more considerable in a case of life, which is of highest 

And if it should be said this law of 25 Ed. III. objection 
takes notice of compassing and imagining; we Answer. 
answer, it is in a particular declared by that law to be treason 
in compassing the death of the King. But this of endea 
vouring to subvert laws not declared by that or any other law 
to be a treason. 

1 And if it should be granted, that this law might in any 
428 case admit any other fact to be treason by inference or con 
struction, other than is therein particularly declared ; which 
we conceive it cannot : 

1 Yet it is not imaginable that a law, introduced purposely 
to limit and ascertain crimes of so high consequence, should 
by construction or inference be subject to a construction 
of admitting so uncertain and indefinite a thing, as an 


endeavour to subvert the law is, it being not comprised within 

the letter of that law. 

(253) 3. That the subversion of the law is a